Well, the thing is, if you read the comments he made from 2003 onwards that I've shown (there are quite a few more), I think even with the mental contortions you are doing it's very hard to describe him as a skeptic.
His criticism of the report isn't `Climate Skeptical'. He criticised the report. So did lots of "warmists". At no stage did he doubt AGW. That is the point. And STFU about Mitt Romney. I couldn't give a **** about US politics. I'm not even a right-winger. I just care about the destruction of public trust in science that the AGW "scientists" are currently engaged in delivering.
Of course he isn't and never was a climate skeptic. One thing you need to realise is that he's just framing the narrative for himself. Here are a few choice quotes from Muller over the years:
“ carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate.” (Richard Muller, 2003)
“There is a consensus that global warming is real. it’s going to get much, much worse.” (Richard Muller, 2008)
"If Al Gore reaches more people and convinces the world that global warming is real, even if he does it through exaggeration and distortion - which he does, but he’s very effective at it - then let him fly any plane he wants." (Richard Muller, 2008).
So, how is he a skeptic? The only notable thing he did was question Michael Mann's graph! Well, who the hell hasn't don't that?
It doesn't mean that at all. Not many Playstation games use OpenGL. You really need to be closer to the metal using Playstation's native libraries in order to get the best out of the console.
Yes, and Microsoft can use their cash mountain to "encourage" developers to use the app store, even running it at a loss for a while in order to destroy Valve's business. It's not as if they've never done this before!
Ok, I don't want to go through the arguments that we've had on this issue over and over again, but the problem GL has had in the past is mostly that D3D got the jump on it in terms of new feature support from vendors. But this isn't really the worst offence against games developers to come from the GL community. The fact is that the tool-chain support for DirectX is superior. This is the number 1 concern of code shops. If nothing else, Microsoft work hard to support developers wanting to use D3D.
Now in terms of Linux being 20% faster, I find this very hard to believe! I think more detail on the kinds of tests they're doing is needed here.
Anyway it does encourage me as I'm currently working on an OpenGL project, having vacillated for quite a while over whether to choose D3D or GL, finally coming down on the GL side to avoid the lock-in. Besides, GL skills are totally cross-platform: Apple/iPhone, Windows, Linux, Android - you can run GL on all of them. The skills and knowledge are more transferrable than D3D (Windows/XBOX). Vendors went cold on GL for a while, but now they're taking it seriously again because of mobile adoption.
Given your opinion here, I wonder how you explain the diversity of life emerging from the extremely rapid warming after the last ice age, the ice age before than and the one before that? The facts seem to contradict your thesis here.
But traditional sources of water are drying up because of population growth, not because the temperature has increased by a few tenths of a degree. Also, there is no peak oil. There's a glut of the stuff at the moment.
The scientific community is not omniscient. That is the whole point of doing science.
No, I don't have any expertise in this area; I'm just an interested layman. I'm a sceptic, not just of this but of a lot of things in science, mostly because we always find it difficult to accept the provisional nature of all scientific truth (certain exceptions notwithstanding, such as the organising principle of Evolution by Natural Selection in biology) in the present, quickly forgetting what we thought we knew fifty years ago that is no longer true today. I find consensus and dogma particularly distasteful, as it is the negation of the philosophy of scientific inquiry, and of course I do know beyond any reasonable doubt that as soon as politicians or money get involved, you can through facts out of the window.
That is true only if you believe that it's going to shoot off the chart. However, I think a more reasonable extrapolation might look something like this.
Secondly, Richard Muller is not and never was a skeptic. Way back in 2003 he was saying things like, "Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate." and even more incredibly, "If Al Gore reaches more people and convinces the world that global warming is real, even if he does it through exaggeration and distortion - which he does, but he’s very effective at it - then let him fly any plane he wants."(2008).
Thirdly, even William Connolley, the guy banned from editing Wikipedia for 6 months due to his attempts to rubbish skeptics, thinks Muller is a wazzock for making the claims he has. So, slashdot, the excitement you are experiencing here is really quite misplaced.
The next time a story about a non-credible climate scientist who makes a living out of sensational, half-baked pronouncements, selling them as science (we can call him, say, Al Gore, for example) appears at slashdot, I bet £10 you and your fellow believers will be here fully agreeing with him and modding each other up for being "insightful".
You seem to be under the impression that the 19th century physics predicts run-away green-house warming. It does not. Even the IPCC put the figure at 1.4C for a doubling of CO2, and that is probably an over-estimate.
Please try and understand the facts before you spout off ignorant rubbish to another commenter. Thank you.
I'm sympathetic to that argument doston, but I do know that the "alternatives" are also industries themselves, with financial and other interests pro, rather than contra the consensus. This is why I say a plague on both your houses and am comfortable with a "do nothing" approach in the political sphere.
I like the way you've cherry-picked a Hansen prediction. He has made other predictions which turn out to be complete rubbish, of course (and later than the one you cite). I guess you didn't come across it, or deliberately chose the one most closely matching your idea of the truth. The fact of the matter is that when the temperature is rising, you can produce a variety of exponential curves that match the observed trend over short periods of time (yes, 30 years is a short period of time), because at the start of the trend the divergence is lowest.
Actually, the hole isn't inexplicable. There's a strong correlation between ozone depletion and cosmic rays. It's possible the CFC theory is a load of old baloney, based on a few years worth of data and not very much actual understanding. But, well, I guess I'll get down-modded for making the point:).
You're quite right jmorris. How do you think I came to have Bad Karma?:) The fact of the matter is that contrary views on this issue are not tolerated by the majority of people who post here. Valid points are ignored and the smallest mistake or deviation from the consensus is heavily punished.
It's also very hard to become good at working with a technology in the learning context alone. Work experience is essential to fill out all of those little details that are extremely important but that you might not have covered. Like PBB, I'm a 41 year old Software Engineer. I think the OP is more about going onwards and upwards, in terms of pay, rather than employability. At my company we have electronics engineers close to retirement - employed recently. It's very hard to find them in our area you see.
Actually I think "Dark Energy" is not so much a hypothesis; it does have observational evidence to support it. It's not "stuff" as such, more the energy in empty space. I've just finished reading Lawrence Krauss's book, A Universe From Nothing. It's an excellent book and I highly recommend it to get a understanding of the basics.
Random mutations might be random, but the resulting gene frequencies in a population are far from random. This is the mistake a lot of people make when it comes to Evolution by Natural Selection.
No, I totally disagree that "intelligent" genetic engineering is even possible. There are unknown unknowns (unforeseen consequences). On the subject of the OP, this is simply another kind of eugenics. If ideas like this came from a right-wing whack-job, you'd all be screaming Nazi.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the thing is, if you read the comments he made from 2003 onwards that I've shown (there are quite a few more), I think even with the mental contortions you are doing it's very hard to describe him as a skeptic.
His criticism of the report isn't `Climate Skeptical'. He criticised the report. So did lots of "warmists". At no stage did he doubt AGW. That is the point. And STFU about Mitt Romney. I couldn't give a **** about US politics. I'm not even a right-winger. I just care about the destruction of public trust in science that the AGW "scientists" are currently engaged in delivering.
So, how is he a skeptic? The only notable thing he did was question Michael Mann's graph! Well, who the hell hasn't don't that?
It doesn't mean that at all. Not many Playstation games use OpenGL. You really need to be closer to the metal using Playstation's native libraries in order to get the best out of the console.
I have done elsewhere. Look, he's be down-modded troll for pointing out the obvious.
Yes, and Microsoft can use their cash mountain to "encourage" developers to use the app store, even running it at a loss for a while in order to destroy Valve's business. It's not as if they've never done this before!
Ok, I don't want to go through the arguments that we've had on this issue over and over again, but the problem GL has had in the past is mostly that D3D got the jump on it in terms of new feature support from vendors. But this isn't really the worst offence against games developers to come from the GL community. The fact is that the tool-chain support for DirectX is superior. This is the number 1 concern of code shops. If nothing else, Microsoft work hard to support developers wanting to use D3D.
Now in terms of Linux being 20% faster, I find this very hard to believe! I think more detail on the kinds of tests they're doing is needed here.
Anyway it does encourage me as I'm currently working on an OpenGL project, having vacillated for quite a while over whether to choose D3D or GL, finally coming down on the GL side to avoid the lock-in. Besides, GL skills are totally cross-platform: Apple/iPhone, Windows, Linux, Android - you can run GL on all of them. The skills and knowledge are more transferrable than D3D (Windows/XBOX). Vendors went cold on GL for a while, but now they're taking it seriously again because of mobile adoption.
That may be the case, but that is not to do with AGW, it's to do with Human population explosion and Human development.
Given your opinion here, I wonder how you explain the diversity of life emerging from the extremely rapid warming after the last ice age, the ice age before than and the one before that? The facts seem to contradict your thesis here.
But traditional sources of water are drying up because of population growth, not because the temperature has increased by a few tenths of a degree. Also, there is no peak oil. There's a glut of the stuff at the moment.
The scientific community is not omniscient. That is the whole point of doing science.
No, I don't have any expertise in this area; I'm just an interested layman. I'm a sceptic, not just of this but of a lot of things in science, mostly because we always find it difficult to accept the provisional nature of all scientific truth (certain exceptions notwithstanding, such as the organising principle of Evolution by Natural Selection in biology) in the present, quickly forgetting what we thought we knew fifty years ago that is no longer true today. I find consensus and dogma particularly distasteful, as it is the negation of the philosophy of scientific inquiry, and of course I do know beyond any reasonable doubt that as soon as politicians or money get involved, you can through facts out of the window.
That is true only if you believe that it's going to shoot off the chart. However, I think a more reasonable extrapolation might look something like this.
You will be moderated "troll" for saying anything against the paradigm here cirby.
Firstly, let us be clear on what we're talking about: current temperature appears as a statistical blip in the historical record.
Secondly, Richard Muller is not and never was a skeptic. Way back in 2003 he was saying things like, "Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate." and even more incredibly, "If Al Gore reaches more people and convinces the world that global warming is real, even if he does it through exaggeration and distortion - which he does, but he’s very effective at it - then let him fly any plane he wants."(2008).
Thirdly, even William Connolley, the guy banned from editing Wikipedia for 6 months due to his attempts to rubbish skeptics, thinks Muller is a wazzock for making the claims he has. So, slashdot, the excitement you are experiencing here is really quite misplaced.
I don't think you have much of a case. But rest it if you wish.
The next time a story about a non-credible climate scientist who makes a living out of sensational, half-baked pronouncements, selling them as science (we can call him, say, Al Gore, for example) appears at slashdot, I bet £10 you and your fellow believers will be here fully agreeing with him and modding each other up for being "insightful".
So it goes.
You seem to be under the impression that the 19th century physics predicts run-away green-house warming. It does not. Even the IPCC put the figure at 1.4C for a doubling of CO2, and that is probably an over-estimate.
Please try and understand the facts before you spout off ignorant rubbish to another commenter. Thank you.
I'm sympathetic to that argument doston, but I do know that the "alternatives" are also industries themselves, with financial and other interests pro, rather than contra the consensus. This is why I say a plague on both your houses and am comfortable with a "do nothing" approach in the political sphere.
I like the way you've cherry-picked a Hansen prediction. He has made other predictions which turn out to be complete rubbish, of course (and later than the one you cite). I guess you didn't come across it, or deliberately chose the one most closely matching your idea of the truth. The fact of the matter is that when the temperature is rising, you can produce a variety of exponential curves that match the observed trend over short periods of time (yes, 30 years is a short period of time), because at the start of the trend the divergence is lowest.
Actually, the hole isn't inexplicable. There's a strong correlation between ozone depletion and cosmic rays. It's possible the CFC theory is a load of old baloney, based on a few years worth of data and not very much actual understanding. But, well, I guess I'll get down-modded for making the point :).
You're quite right jmorris. How do you think I came to have Bad Karma? :) The fact of the matter is that contrary views on this issue are not tolerated by the majority of people who post here. Valid points are ignored and the smallest mistake or deviation from the consensus is heavily punished.
It's also very hard to become good at working with a technology in the learning context alone. Work experience is essential to fill out all of those little details that are extremely important but that you might not have covered. Like PBB, I'm a 41 year old Software Engineer. I think the OP is more about going onwards and upwards, in terms of pay, rather than employability. At my company we have electronics engineers close to retirement - employed recently. It's very hard to find them in our area you see.
Actually I think "Dark Energy" is not so much a hypothesis; it does have observational evidence to support it. It's not "stuff" as such, more the energy in empty space. I've just finished reading Lawrence Krauss's book, A Universe From Nothing. It's an excellent book and I highly recommend it to get a understanding of the basics.
I could levitate my dinner plate, replacing the need for cushions on my sofa.
Random mutations might be random, but the resulting gene frequencies in a population are far from random. This is the mistake a lot of people make when it comes to Evolution by Natural Selection.
No, I totally disagree that "intelligent" genetic engineering is even possible. There are unknown unknowns (unforeseen consequences). On the subject of the OP, this is simply another kind of eugenics. If ideas like this came from a right-wing whack-job, you'd all be screaming Nazi.