Wednesday, May 26, 2021

Steven Koonin lecturing climate scientists: Delusional Thinking 101 at Lawrence Livermore Nat'l Lab. Seriously? Why?

It is simply untrue that Prof. Steven Koonin is confronting climate scientists with unpleasant facts they ignored or failed to understand.   Atmospheric Scientist, Ben Santer PhD

I haven't done much on the climate science denial front lately, since it's gotten too depressing, especially for those of us who pay attention to the increasing imbalance and the ongoing and unsustainable degradation of our Earth's biosphere.  

Besides, seems to me it's not a problem with climate sciences, or the scientists who do it, we have achieved a plenty good at understanding the mechanisms unfolding within our global heat and moisture distribution engine and biosphere.  (Just need to be willing to do your homework and honestly learn about it.)

The problem is with the delusional thinking people love to wrap themselves within.  

Which is why I've move on a bit and why I undertook: Donald Hoffman Playing Basketball In Zero-gravity, my book review and student resource building project.

Interestingly, lately I've been thinking about Ben Santer and how he's been doing these days - since his case, seemed to me, one of the first where climate science denialists showed their complete willingness to engage in no holds barred, malicious, ruthless misrepresentations, character assassinations, and dirty tricks.  Then I read the following and figured why not give it a little more web presence, it's worth reading and thinking about.  

This is why I'm sharing this important PSA that I read at  For more on Ben Santer: My Climate Story - Ben Santer, also:

IPCC: the dirty tricks climate scientists faced in three decades since first report

August 27, 2020 -

The Relentless Attack on Climate Scientist Ben Santer

May 16, 2014 -

The consensus-building process of the IPCC

February 12, 2012 -

Close Encounters of the Absurd Kind

February 24, 2010 -

Dr. Ben Santer: 'Climate Denialism Has No Place at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory'

Posted on 25 May 2021 by Guest Author, Ben Santer

This is a repost of Dr. Santer's statement via the Union of Concerned Scientists blog and we thank UCS for this permission.   (As I thank Skeptical Science and Union of Concerned Scientists for making my reposting possible!  Cc)

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) has invited Professor Steven Koonin to give a seminar on May 27, 2021. Professor Koonin’s seminar will cover material contained in a book he published on May 4. His book is entitled “Unsettled”. Its basic thesis is that climate science is not trustworthy.

Professor Koonin is not a climate scientist. I am. I have worked at LLNL since 1992. My primary job is to evaluate computer models of the climate system. I also seek to improve understanding of human and natural influences on climate.

In collaboration with scientific colleagues around the world, our research group at LLNL has identified human “fingerprints” in temperature changes at Earth’s surface, in the atmosphere, and in the oceans. We have also found human fingerprints in rainfall and moisture. LLNL’s fingerprint research is one small part of a large body of evidence that contributed to scientific findings of a “discernible human influence on global climate”.

I have interacted with Professor Koonin since late 2013. Back then, he argued that uncertainties in climate science were large and were not fully acknowledged by climatescientists. In his view, climate science was not sufficiently “mature” to be useful to policymakers. Similar claims are advanced in his new book.

It is simply untrue that Prof. Koonin is confronting climate scientists with unpleasant facts they ignored or failed to understand. 

Saturday, May 15, 2021

Diary, May 14_dirty tricks at blogspot - re. Solms demystifying Chalmers “hard problem.”

I was rather shocked this evening by a message from “Blogger <>”

   “Your content has violated our Malware and Viruses policy. Please visit  

our Community Guidelines page linked in this email to learn more.” ???

Say what?  Nothing specific, I mean if someone’s installed malware into a blogspot post of mine, shouldn’t I be told were to find it?  You know, flag a potentially bigger problem?

But nothing like that.

Worse, no place to send an appeal or ask for details.

“Was flagged to us for review.”

Now I’m sitting here wondering who’s not liking what I’m writing and decided to start playing dirty tricks and a little back stabbing?

And since Blogspot seems to be hermetically sealed to its users, I’ve no other place to discuss this than right here.  I have reread Blogger’s guidelines, I have reread my article and the supporting references I added, I see nothing against Community Guidelines.  

My article was written in good faith, and is part of a larger project I’m willing to defend openly, to anyone honorable and honest enough to challenge me.

I am reposting the article since it is an integral part of my project.

If Blogger Moderators are asked to review this post again.  

I request that you inform me of specific perceived violations before pulling it this time.  If someone has hidden malware in there I have every right and need to know.  But, I’m pretty sure closer inspection will reveal no malware/virus, only a malicious trickster.  

Having someone at Blogger to respond to, would also be nice.

Thank you for your understanding,

Peter Miesler

Aka citizenschallenge


Saturday evening, May 15th.

This morning I received the following:

This morning my original post was back up and I found this email.  Then this evening, I found it reverted to DRAFT status and I needed to repost it, so to honor the incident I've adjusted the title.

"David Chalmers "Hard-Problem" demystified by Mark Solms and colleagues."



Dr. Mark Solms deftly demystifies Chalmers’ “Hard Problem” of Consciousness

Chance favors a prepared mind - and after nearly a year of dealing with “The Case Against Reality,” which, for me, was a collection of maddeningly dreamy philosophizing*; disconnected from physical reality; and dismissive of the known facts and Evolution, which is central to my understanding of reality.  *(on the other hand)

Learning is about providing us with tools and concepts we can work with as building blocks towards further developing our overall conceptions.  But Hoffman’s FBT theorem and ITP inspired “conscious agents,” was like a bad practical joke, offering little but frustration, luftgeschäft, irrelevance - no place to go with it once it's done.

As if on cue, YouTube prompted me with a suggestion that I might like this newly released talk:  "The Source of Consciousness - with Dr. Mark Solms" posted March 4th and they weren’t kidding.  Dr. Solms provides a way back to the solid ground of physical reality and serious science.

Friday, May 7, 2021

It’s Not A “Body-Mind Problem” - It’s An “Ego-God Problem.”

(updated January 1, 2022)

Among the lessons I’ve taken away from my Hoffman adventure is that as I’ve followed the philosophical roots of “dualism” back through Descartes (1600s) and on past Anselm (1000s), one thing has become clear. the entire philosophical edifice of this Mind-Body “Problem” was formed from within that Abrahamic God-fearing mindset that gave us the three major religions, with their self-serving patriarchal mentality, heaven and hell, along with branding dualism’s hard boundaries and need for a sense of certitude into our imagination and onto our expectations.

The Abrahamic worldview perceives people as isolated objects, not only from this planet, but each other, even from ourselves.  The creatures we live with and the landscapes we exist within are treated with contempt and wanton waste.

Regarding the “Mind-Body Problem.”  

Dr. Solms makes a wonderful analogy that highlights the error being made:

Question:  Was it lightning or thunder that killed the man?

It’s a meaningless question.

Lightning and thunder are simply different aspects of the same phenomena.

Our Mind and consciousness is the interior reflection of our living body (both its interior housekeeping and external interaction with the environment).  We simply cannot have one without the other.

We are embedded within an interconnected web of life and are the direct products of Earth’s Pageant of Evolution.

Why isn’t that reflected in modern philosophical discourse? 

Learning to appreciate the deep-time pageant of Evolution puts an entirely different richer light upon our interior existence.  An awareness that encompasses the whole of time and this planet that created us.

It also gives us a deep appreciation for the continuity of life.  Life is good, life is precious, but death is no enemy, painful though it may be.  Death is part of the cycle that brings forth new life.  Revel in the pageant you are blessed enough to be witnessing.  While you can. 

As for God?  

Who is “God,” but a creation of our unique complex human minds dealing with our day to days?   

Where did God come from?