<div dir="ltr">> They presented the difficulties in analyzing the data sets and the broad range of possible climate changes.<div>Sound bites, 280-character Tweets, and social media zingers don't lend themselves to any level of nuance. </div><div><br></div><div>I'd like to share this article to broaden the original topic's scope (eg, facts refuting conspiracy theorists and disinformation campaigns). </div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">It’s been clear for quite a while now that red America and blue America are becoming like two different countries claiming the same territory, with two different versions of the Constitution, economics, and American history. But Babel is not a story about tribalism; it’s a story about the fragmentation of everything. It’s about the shattering of all that had seemed solid, the scattering of people who had been a community. It’s a metaphor for what is happening not only between red and blue, but within the left and within the right, as well as within universities, companies, professional associations, museums, and even families.<br></blockquote><div> - Jonathan Haidt, <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/05/social-media-democracy-trust-babel/629369/">https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/05/social-media-democracy-trust-babel/629369/</a> </div><div><br></div><div>We're all commenting and observing that there's fierce competition over who gets to define the facts and interpretations of these facts. I was surprised to see scientific research expressed in similar terms: "relegate your competitor scientists to obscurity...where the pleasure is not only owning all of the hotels, but also in wiping out a friend". I've worked in the tech world my whole career where business competition and technical cooperation go hand-in-hand. (Eg, open source software and open standards) Is this no longer the case in scientific research? </div><div><br></div><div>Jerry Harris (the other other Jerry)</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 6:23 PM Jerome Slate <<a href="mailto:SlateMD@comcast.net">SlateMD@comcast.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Dear
Group. <br>
</font></p>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">
</font>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt;text-indent:13.7pt;line-height:13pt"><font size="4" face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">First, let met say that
“Climate Science”
in the press has devolved into an oxymoron. <span></span>This contrasts sharply with
the Penn State course
in climatology that Charlie Holbrow, Carl Lazarus, Mike
Alexander and I took.
In that class, the scientists, believers all in global warming,
presented a balanced
academic discussion of what we know and what we don’t. They
presented the difficulties
in analyzing the data sets and the broad range of possible
climate changes. </font></p>
<font size="4" face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">
</font>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt;text-indent:13.7pt;line-height:13pt"><font size="4" face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">In the press, we seen the
opposite in
scientists and others—true believers cherry picking data without
recognizing the
many unknowns. Serious scientific investigation <i>is not</i> being a true believer in a given result and
then trying to
prove it. <span> </span>Rather, the
goal is to find a
definitive advance of any sort and to relegate your competitor
scientists to
obscurity. Scientific investigation is much like the game
Monopoly, where the pleasure is not only
owning all of the hotels, but also in wiping out a friend. </font></p>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">
</font>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt;text-indent:13.7pt;line-height:13pt"><font size="5" face="Times
New Roman, Times, serif"> Jerry Slate</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt;text-indent:13.7pt;line-height:13pt"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Castellar,"serif""> Commissioner</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt;text-indent:13.7pt;line-height:13pt"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Castellar,"serif"">Ministry of Truth</span></p>
<br>
<br>
<div>On 7/21/2022 2:46 PM, Jerry Harris
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Hi Stephen,
<div>> Meanwhile, notice that the opposite does NOT happen.
In other words, nowhere in the “alternative” or
“pseudoscience” world are the real academic debates on these
supposedly “alternative facts” actually referenced. It’s a
one-sided argument where science engages it’s critics but it’s
critics then ignore those legitimate responses to their
attacks. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This is usually a sign the debater is approaching the topic
with a pre-conceived conclusion and will discard contradictory
facts, treating the data as a means to an end. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>As for this particular dataset on Dr Roy's website, I
downloaded his data file (it was not csv-formatted) and
created a chart. The charts don't match at all. It's also
clear it's an incomplete dataset. The numbers are "temperature
anomalies", which are deltas from an average calculated across
a range of the original temperature data (eg, years
1981-2001). The average of the anomaly data across the same
range should equal zero. There was no such range in his data
file, so he's missing data. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I don't know whether the data is legit or not, but someone
who's this sloppy with their charts and data is working from a
trust deficit. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Jerry</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 1:34
PM Stephen Quatrano <<a href="mailto:stefanoq@gmail.com" target="_blank">stefanoq@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>Jerry,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I get what you are saying. Theories that explain the
evidence are absolutely a matter of debate in the
scientific community. And it’s certainly true about what
should be DONE about climate change, which is not a
scientific question at all. But with respect to the
evidence itself, especially in a case like this, I think
there is still a LOT we can say in order to push back on a
post-modern kind of view where everyone is entitled to
their own facts as well as their own opinions.
Furthermore, in this case, I think there’s evidence that
this data set in particular is being used in bad faith —
abused in other words — to undermine public confidence in
science.</div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This satellite data is not a set of “alternative
facts” that are ignored by the scientific community. It
doesn’t even contradict warming that has been observed
unless you cherry pick the data. (Why are we looking at
the last 18 years?) On the contrary, the overall
dataset confirms the fact that the planet is warming,
first of all. And second, this data set is PART of the
empirical data we use to understand what is happening to
our planet. And finally, on its own, it does not
falsify an overwhelming, global consensus on the fact of
climate change and attribution models that can ONLY
account for observed changes when we consider the
effects of human activity.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>All you need to do to verify these three claims is
search the scientific record for the dataset. Voila!
You find it!! Someone more skilled than I am with
familiarity and access to original scientific research
can do it even better than I have, no doubt. I’d love
to see and learn more about this dataset!</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This is pretty far from my own expertise but I have
invested quite a bit of time into both the history and
philosophy of science in order to understand “how we
know what we know”. I’ve learned to take a deep breath
and ask some important questions before engaging in
unproductive debate on science and pseudoscience. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>For example, my first question is: “What exactly is
this data set?” I try hard to actually be interested in
the data and interested in learning. Why not? It’s
cool.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>And my second question is: “If it is legit, and if
it does contradict other data, is it actually being
ignored by scientists (which is what is being implied by
the controversy)? Is it being hidden or covered up? Or
perhaps it’s actually being used in their models?” </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Does anyone else notice that these questions are not
asked by those who are sowing doubt? And they surely
don’t make explicit claims that scientists have ignored
or tried to cover up the contradictory data. Why not?
Because they can be investigated pretty easily. And if
you look, you’ll find out that ALL of the legitimate
data is being used by the community, not just those
“convenient” datapoints that support some kind of bogus
theory.<br>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I used Google for literally 5 minutes and found
these pretty interesting looking arguments that engage
with the data, the actual data, NOT ALTERNATIVE FACTS,
and explain that it IS being used and HOW it’s being
used and WHY.</div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><a href="https://skepticalscience.com/Response-Data-or-Dogma-hearing.html" target="_blank">https://skepticalscience.com/Response-Data-or-Dogma-hearing.html</a></div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><a href="https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=466" target="_blank">https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=466</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>“What-about-ism” is a plague on our open society
and rational public discourse. It’s a problem that
all you need to do to cast doubt on hard won consensus
after years of debate and vital institutions, is to
throw data that seems to contradict conventional
wisdom and ask questions like these: “What about the
'Latest Global Average Tropospheric Temperatures’ data
set from satellites?”</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Even I experience a kind of knee-jerk, visceral
response to this question. I feel myself asking,
“Yeah! What ABOUT that contradictory data?” Dang!</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>You see, it’s just too easy to cast doubt and
undermine confidence like this. And it’s really,
freakin hard to build trust.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Stepping back, I notice that the record of
scientific literature DOES consider these
measurements, dare I call them “facts." There are no
alternative facts. The prevailing models MUST account
for all observations, including these. And sure
enough, these very datasets are clearly referenced in
the literature.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Meanwhile, notice that the opposite does NOT
happen. In other words, nowhere in the “alternative”
or “pseudoscience” world are the real academic debates
on these supposedly “alternative facts” actually
referenced. It’s a one-sided argument where science
engages it’s critics but it’s critics then ignore
those legitimate responses to their attacks. They
repeat themselves. Or they move on. They don’t
actually debate the issue: they just cast doubt on
the entire endeavor.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I call this “bad faith” or pseudo-discourse. It’s
not, in fact, a conversation at all.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Unfortunately, this creates a lot of collateral
damage as well. It affects our confidence and public
trust in EVERYTHING.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>SQ</div>
<div>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On Jul 21, 2022, at 12:15 PM, Jerry Harris
<<a href="mailto:jerryharri@gmail.com" target="_blank">jerryharri@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">Peter,
<div>I disagree. The climate change debate
shows us that alternative facts have been
created and used to support pre-determined
conclusions. The latest example recently
shared on this list was that global warming
is on "pause" and CO2 increase is not the
cause of climate change. (<a href="https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/" target="_blank">https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/</a>)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Even in situations where the facts are
agreed upon by all parties, there can be
plenty of alternative conclusions. Sometimes
these are positive and progressive, eg, the
scientific method where a new theory is
proposed based on existing data. Sometimes
there is incorrect or flawed reasoning
(e.g., stupidity) that is used to reach a
different conclusion. And sometimes, there
are belief- or ideologically-driven
conclusions where the data and reasoning
chain only serves as means to an end. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This gets me back to conspiracy
theorists. Dismissing them as either
"stupid" or "fact-deprived" ignores the harm
they can cause through disinformation
amplification and brainwashing. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I know this is typical over-thinking of a
simple cartoon, but this is why I feel the
cartoon is timelessly funny, IMO. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Jerry</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Jul
21, 2022 at 11:21 AM <<a href="mailto:palbin24@yahoo.com" target="_blank">palbin24@yahoo.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="auto">Fortunately in science
“alternate facts” do not exist.<br>
<br>
<div dir="ltr">Peter</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">On Jul 21, 2022,
at 11:11 AM, <a href="mailto:carllazarus@comcast.net" target="_blank">carllazarus@comcast.net</a>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Facts don’t
matter to conspiracy theorists.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div style="border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:none;border-top:1pt solid rgb(225,225,225);padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b>
LCTG
<lctg-bounces+carllazarus=<a href="mailto:comcast.net@lists.toku.us" target="_blank">comcast.net@lists.toku.us</a>>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Jerry
Harris<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, July 21,
2022 8:30 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> john rudy <<a href="mailto:jjrudy1@comcast.net" target="_blank">jjrudy1@comcast.net</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Lex Computer Group
<<a href="mailto:LCTG@lists.toku.us" target="_blank">LCTG@lists.toku.us</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Lex
Computer & Tech Group/LCTG]
science</p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">If only
conspiracy theories or
disinformation campaigns could
be so easily refuted with
facts. </p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Wed, Jul
20, 2022 at 10:58 AM john rudy
<<a href="mailto:jjrudy1@comcast.net" target="_blank">jjrudy1@comcast.net</a>>
wrote:</p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1pt solid rgb(204,204,204);padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><image001.png></div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">===============================================<br>
::The Lexington Computer and
Technology Group Mailing
List::<br>
Reply goes to sender only;
Reply All to send to list.<br>
Send to the list: <a href="mailto:LCTG@lists.toku.us" target="_blank">LCTG@lists.toku.us</a>
Message archives: <a href="http://lists.toku.us/private.cgi/lctg-toku.us" target="_blank">http://lists.toku.us/private.cgi/lctg-toku.us</a><br>
To subscribe: email <a href="mailto:lctg-subscribe@toku.us" target="_blank">lctg-subscribe@toku.us</a>
To unsubscribe: email <a href="mailto:lctg-unsubscribe@toku.us" target="_blank">lctg-unsubscribe@toku.us</a><br>
Future and Past meeting
information: <a href="http://lctg.toku.us/" target="_blank">http://LCTG.toku.us</a><br>
List information: <a href="http://lists.toku.us/listinfo.cgi/lctg-toku.us" target="_blank">http://lists.toku.us/listinfo.cgi/lctg-toku.us</a><br>
This message was sent to <a href="mailto:jerryharri@gmail.com" target="_blank">jerryharri@gmail.com</a>.<br>
Set your list options: <a href="http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/jerryharri@gmail.com" target="_blank">http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/jerryharri@gmail.com</a></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<span>===============================================</span><br>
<span>::The Lexington Computer and
Technology Group Mailing List::</span><br>
<span>Reply goes to sender only; Reply
All to send to list.</span><br>
<span>Send to the list: <a href="mailto:LCTG@lists.toku.us" target="_blank">LCTG@lists.toku.us</a>
Message archives: <a href="http://lists.toku.us/private.cgi/lctg-toku.us" target="_blank">http://lists.toku.us/private.cgi/lctg-toku.us</a></span><br>
<span>To subscribe: email <a href="mailto:lctg-subscribe@toku.us" target="_blank">lctg-subscribe@toku.us</a>
To unsubscribe: email <a href="mailto:lctg-unsubscribe@toku.us" target="_blank">lctg-unsubscribe@toku.us</a></span><br>
<span>Future and Past meeting
information: <a href="http://lctg.toku.us/" target="_blank">http://LCTG.toku.us</a></span><br>
<span>List information: <a href="http://lists.toku.us/listinfo.cgi/lctg-toku.us" target="_blank">http://lists.toku.us/listinfo.cgi/lctg-toku.us</a></span><br>
<span>This message was sent to <a href="mailto:palbin24@yahoo.com" target="_blank">palbin24@yahoo.com</a>.</span><br>
<span>Set your list options: <a href="http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/palbin24@yahoo.com" target="_blank">http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/palbin24@yahoo.com</a></span></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
===============================================<br>
::The Lexington Computer and Technology
Group Mailing List::<br>
Reply goes to sender only; Reply All to send
to list.<br>
Send to the list: <a href="mailto:LCTG@lists.toku.us" target="_blank">LCTG@lists.toku.us</a>
Message archives: <a href="http://lists.toku.us/private.cgi/lctg-toku.us" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.toku.us/private.cgi/lctg-toku.us</a><br>
To subscribe: email <a href="mailto:lctg-subscribe@toku.us" target="_blank">lctg-subscribe@toku.us</a>
To unsubscribe: email <a href="mailto:lctg-unsubscribe@toku.us" target="_blank">lctg-unsubscribe@toku.us</a><br>
Future and Past meeting information: <a href="http://lctg.toku.us/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://LCTG.toku.us</a><br>
List information: <a href="http://lists.toku.us/listinfo.cgi/lctg-toku.us" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.toku.us/listinfo.cgi/lctg-toku.us</a><br>
This message was sent to <a href="mailto:jerryharri@gmail.com" target="_blank">jerryharri@gmail.com</a>.<br>
Set your list options: <a href="http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/jerryharri@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/jerryharri@gmail.com</a></blockquote>
</div>
===============================================<br>
::The Lexington Computer and Technology Group
Mailing List::<br>
Reply goes to sender only; Reply All to send to
list.<br>
Send to the list: <a href="mailto:LCTG@lists.toku.us" target="_blank">LCTG@lists.toku.us</a>
Message archives: <a href="http://lists.toku.us/private.cgi/lctg-toku.us" target="_blank">http://lists.toku.us/private.cgi/lctg-toku.us</a><br>
To subscribe: <a href="mailto:lctg-subscribe@toku.us" target="_blank">email
lctg-subscribe@toku.us</a> To unsubscribe: <a href="mailto:lctg-unsubscribe@toku.us" target="_blank">email
lctg-unsubscribe@toku.us</a><br>
Future and Past meeting information: <a href="http://LCTG.toku.us" target="_blank">http://LCTG.toku.us</a><br>
List information: <a href="http://lists.toku.us/listinfo.cgi/lctg-toku.us" target="_blank">http://lists.toku.us/listinfo.cgi/lctg-toku.us</a><br>
This message was sent to <a href="mailto:stefanoq@gmail.com" target="_blank">stefanoq@gmail.com</a>.<br>
Set your list options: <a href="http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/stefanoq@gmail.com" target="_blank">http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/stefanoq@gmail.com</a></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre>===============================================
::The Lexington Computer and Technology Group Mailing List::
Reply goes to sender only; Reply All to send to list.
Send to the list: <a href="mailto:LCTG@lists.toku.us" target="_blank">LCTG@lists.toku.us</a> Message archives: <a href="http://lists.toku.us/private.cgi/lctg-toku.us" target="_blank">http://lists.toku.us/private.cgi/lctg-toku.us</a>
To subscribe: email <a href="mailto:lctg-subscribe@toku.us" target="_blank">lctg-subscribe@toku.us</a> To unsubscribe: email <a href="mailto:lctg-unsubscribe@toku.us" target="_blank">lctg-unsubscribe@toku.us</a>
Future and Past meeting information: <a href="http://LCTG.toku.us" target="_blank">http://LCTG.toku.us</a>
List information: <a href="http://lists.toku.us/listinfo.cgi/lctg-toku.us" target="_blank">http://lists.toku.us/listinfo.cgi/lctg-toku.us</a>
This message was sent to <a href="mailto:slatemd@comcast.net" target="_blank">slatemd@comcast.net</a>.
Set your list options: <a href="http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/slatemd@comcast.net" target="_blank">http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/slatemd@comcast.net</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote></div>