Skunk Power!

[MartinW 0]

I refer of course to the legendary Skunk Works.
 
You may not be aware of this fellow simmers, but the Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works recently announced that they were on course to build a new design fusion reactor in less than a decade!!!
 
The reactor will be 1/10 the size of the current reactors using the Tokomak doughnut reactor approach. This guy will fit in the back of a truck and be capable of powering 80,000 homes for a year with a fuel consumption of a mere 25kg. 
 
If it were anyone else, you would be forgiven for sniggering a bit and dismissing it as a load of nonsense... but this is the Skunk Works, these guys aren't idiots.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29710811

 

What experts believe that Lockheed have done is to change the way that huge magnets are used to contain the gas.

Called "cusp geometry", the arrangement produces an effect where the harder a particle struggles to move away from the gas, the harder the magnets work to keep it in line.

Achieving this type of stability has been a major problem for most of the other approaches to fusion.

 

 

[MartinW 0]

 

 

 

 

 

[MartinW 0]

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-fusion.html

 

 

 

HOW COMPACT FUSION WORKS

Nuclear fusion is the process by which the sun works. Our concept will mimic that process within a compact magnetic container and release energy in a controlled fashion to produce power we can use.

A reactor small enough to fit on a truck could provide enough power for a small city of up to 100,000 people

Building on more than 60 years of fusion research, the Lockheed Martin Skunk Works approach to compact fusion is a high beta concept. This concept uses a high fraction of the magnetic field pressure, or all of its potential, so we can make our devices 10 times smaller than previous concepts. That means we can replace a device that must be housed in a large building with one that can fit on the back of a truck.

 

 

The compact size is the reason that we believe we will be able to create fusion technology quickly. The smaller the size of the device, the easier it is to build up momentum and develop it faster. Instead of taking five years to design and build a concept, it takes only a few months. If we undergo a few of these testing and refinement cycles, we will be able to develop a prototype within the same five year timespan.

 

 

 

[allardjd 1,853]

...and they just might do it. The larger projects so far don't seem to be producing much except virtual black holes for other people's money.

John

[markhudson6 13]

The lead engineer of the Skunk Work's CFR Thomas McGuire has said that the Lockheed project "takes the good parts of a lot of designs" from other promising avenues of fusion reactor research around the world.

 

So maybe the larger projects have contributed more than you give them credit for. 

 

Some more info on what the Skunk Work's people are up to.

 

http://aviationweek.com/technology/skunk-works-reveals-compact-fusion-reactor-details

 

M.

 

 

[markhudson6 13]

Great to see that this technology will produce far less radioactive waste than your standard nuke power station.  It still produces tritium, but in small amounts and it is all fed back into the reactor to maintain the reaction, very nice. 

 

M.

[allardjd 1,853]

Fusion is inherently better than fission in several respects, but is considerably harder to achieve. When the history of electric generation by the human race is finally written, fission nuclear will be a footnote.

John

[MartinW 0]

ITER has cost a lot for sure, and if Lockheed Martin are successful I'm not sure what purpose a completed conventional design Tokomak fusion reactor would serve. It would suggest that ITER would be rendered instantly irrelevant the moment LM announced success.  Same would apply to the NIF approach I would have thought.

 

The LM concept is just that at the moment, just a concept, just preliminary research. It may well be that the Skunk Works encounters issues further down the line that render the approach problematic.

 

It's logical that cutting edge research, attempting to achieve something as amazing as controlled energy output from essentially a miniature star on Earth, would be expensive. Expensive, but necessary given that the world is crying out for such a technological breakthrough. If LM do achieve what up till now was regarded as technically impossible, it would be very unfair if the world derided ITER and NIF with the benefit of hindsight,

 

 

 

 

[ddavid 149]

I wonder if this is just the Holy Grail that climate change deniers are seeking?

Only asking...

Cheers - Dai.

[allardjd 1,853]

I find the term "denier" a little insulting. I am one, but prefer "skeptic", as it's a more accurate description of how I feel about the topic.

Do you really want to go here?

John

[ddavid 149]

I guess a skeptic does allow him/her-self a change of mind, whereas a denier is clearly unlikely to. Do you see yourself in the former camp, John?

I, personally, am skeptical about many things - often because of a gut feel, rather than actual knowledge or experience. I include big bangs and black holes in this. However, I'm no skeptic when it comes to climate change. It won't go away. And, anyway, we have our grand-children to consider - they deserve to choose their future, not be limited to what we inflict on them.

Have we got there yet?!?

Cheers - Dai.

[MartinW 0]

There's noting wrong with scepticism, scepticism is great. In fact the very scientists that provide the evidence for man made global warming are sceptics, all scientists are initially sceptics and attempt to break their own research.

 

But to be honest, how a reasonably intelligent, well educated person could still be sceptical that mankind is warming the planet baffles me. I can think of no rational basis for that position.

 

I recall that in the debates John and I have had on this in the past, I have answered all of the points he has raised and provided a plethora of supporting links and actually common sense as well. But still John is sceptical. Why I have no idea. I doubt John will tell us precisely why he is sceptical, because that would spark off one of the legendary global warming debates of Just Flight fame, and I sense he would like to steer clear of that.

A sceptic is a person who questions or doubts something.

A denier on the other hand does so despite overwhelming evidence, in fact they usually ignore the evidence, or anyone's attempt to present the evidence. No matter what evidence you present them, they still won't accept it. Typically they will ignore you when you provide a counter argument... like it hasn't happened.

[markhudson6 13]

legendary global warming debates of Just Flight fame

 

 

 

[hifly 925]

And I thought denier was something about the thickness of silk stockings.  

[brett 2,315]

Yawn. I am starting to get tired of this "my stance is better than your stance" crap. It's ok to believe one way or the other and post those observations but when we start with the name calling or demean others beliefs then you step over the line and start sounding like children in the playground and what baffles me is how seemingly intelligent people can let themselves pigeonhole others just because of a differing view. When folks lower themselves to that point during a debate any smart things said before that point fly out the window because your views are no longer credible in my view. 

 

If anyone feels so strongly about a subject and gets angry when they can not change another persons mind, right or wrong, may I suggest going for a sim flight instead of going on the attack in a forum environment. Not quite the same as being on a high horse, it's even better.

 

Now I am happy to see advances in anything that will produce more energy and lower pollution and resources so thanks for the heads up on the article.  The sad fact is that none of these advances will ever save me money on my electric bill.

 

As always, JMO    

 

 

[markhudson6 13]

 

The sad fact is that none of these advances will ever save me money on my electric bill.  

 

Aaahh, Now you've brought politics into it.    

[MartinW 0]

Being baffled is not demeaning anyone. No one has got angry in the slightest. No name calling.

Thus, I am baffled again.

[Captain Coffee 2,030]

I agree with you guys.

 

 

(fyi... my plan is to retire on a sailboat and enjoy the beaches of as many islands as possible just in case they disappear...and if they don't...win win.)

 

[allardjd 1,853]

=== CONTENT WARNING - Do not continue to read if easily offended ===

I guess a skeptic does allow him/her-self a change of mind, whereas a denier is clearly unlikely to. Do you see yourself in the former camp, John?

I suspect that I'm as willing to be convinced by your arguments as you are of being convinced by mine.

 

I'm no skeptic when it comes to climate change. It won't go away.

Of course it won't go away. It's been happening since long before the human race was here to "cause" it to happen. The geological record is full of it.

 

...we have our grand-children to consider - they deserve to choose their future, not be limited to what we inflict on them.

Would you like their future to include affordable energy? Do you believe the wholesale shutdown of the most economical, large-scale energy sources on the planet in favor of vastly more expensive and uncertain things is somehow broadening their future choices?

 

I recall that in the debates John and I have had on this in the past, I have answered all of the points he has raised and provided a plethora of supporting links and actually common sense as well.

I remember it differently. Nobody in a forum can answer "...all the points..." mentioned and you certainly did not. Like most in deep forum discussions, me included, you sometimes cherry-picked the ones you chose to address and let the rest languish. In the final set of posts, your over-the-line comment to me on this very topic is the reason that I no longer post in your fiefdom, the General Discussion forum at JF. I didn't quit that forum because of the brilliance of your responses, but because of your behavior.

 

But still John is sceptical. Why I have no idea.

I'm skeptical, not sceptical.

 

I doubt John will tell us precisely why he is sceptical, because that would spark off one of the legendary global warming debates of Just Flight fame, and I sense he would like to steer clear of that.

You guessed wrong! Let's start with this...

You may remember an event, or series of them that is now commonly referred to as Climategate. A large body of e-mails and other documents were hacked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia. Included were a number authored by Professor Phil Jones, and some of those included discussions of how to discredit and silence AGW skeptics and how to "improve" the data to drive out those annoying things that were counter to the AGW position. Keep that idea of improving the data in mind as you read below.

One of the most interesting of the purloined files was a very large document authored by one Ian Harris, who was one of the primary keepers and manipulators of the climate data upon which most of the CRU's work was based. The file in question appears to be a kind of log he kept. Here are some excepts from his log.

"OH [F-Bomb] THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found."

"So, once again I don't understand statistics. Quel surprise, given that I haven't had any training in stats in my entire life, unless you count A-level maths."

“I am seriously close to giving up, again. The history of this is so complex that I can't get far enough into it before by head hurts and I have to stop. Each parameter has a tortuous history of manual and semi-automated interventions that I simply cannot just go back to early versions and run the update prog. I could be throwing away all kinds of corrections - to lat/lons, to WMOs (yes!), and more.”

"Bear in mind that there is no working synthetic method for cloud, because Mark New lost the coefficients file and never found it again (despite searching on tape archives at UEA) and never recreated it."

“This whole project is SUCH A MESS. No wonder I needed therapy!!”

"So.. should I really go to town (again) and allow the Master database to be ‘fixed’ by this program? Quite honestly I don't have time - but it just shows the state our data holdings have drifted into. Who added those two series together? When? Why? Untraceable, except anecdotally. It's the same story for many other Russian stations, unfortunately - meaning that (probably) there was a full Russian update that did no data integrity checking at all. I just hope it's restricted to Russia!!"

"Had a hunt and found an identically-named temperature database file which did include normals lines at the start of every station. How handy – naming two different files with exactly the same name and relying on their location to differentiate! Aaarrgghh!!"

"Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot! Yet the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have :-)"

"Now looking at the dates.. something bad has happened, hasn't it. COBAR AIRPORT AWS cannot star[t] in 1962, it didn't open until 1993!"

“Just another thing I cannot understand, and another reason why this should all have been rewritten from scratch a year ago!”

"So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option - to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations (er, CLIMAT excepted). In other words, what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad, but I really don't think people care enough to fix 'em, and it's the main reason the project is nearly a year late."

"Because although I'm thrilled at the high match rate (87%!), it does seem worse when you realise that you lost the rest.."

Some time before Climategate, CRU stated it no longer had the original raw data that it's entire climate science project was based on. They said, "We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added data." Value-added means that they've revised the data in various ways, to "improve" it. That value-added process is much of what Mr. Ian Harris' log entries refer to. This, of course, was around the time that Dr. Phil Jones of CRU was steadfastly refusing to release the raw data for peer review.

These, of course, are just examples, but telling ones. You wonder why I'm skeptical of their conclusions? I wonder why you aren't.

 

No one has got angry in the slightest.

That's incorrect. I did, when your responses became insulting, and I left that forum for good. Your post #12 above is leaning that way. Please don't make left-handed implications that those who don't agree with you are irrational or otherwise unenlightened.

 

But to be honest, how a reasonably intelligent, well educated person could still be sceptical that mankind is warming the planet baffles me. I can think of no rational basis for that position.

I can. See above for a couple of examples.

[MartinW 0]

Reply will be in several posts. Lots to reply to.
 

I remember it differently. Nobody in a forum can answer "...all the points..." mentioned and you certainly did not. Like most in deep forum discussions, me included, you sometimes cherry-picked the ones you chose to address and let the rest languish. In the final set of posts, your over-the-line comment to me on this very topic is the reason that I no longer post in your fiefdom, the General Discussion forum at JF. I didn't quit that forum because of the brilliance of your responses, but because of your behavior.

Actually, when I say "answer all the points" John, I am referring to the points in opposition to MMGW that you yourself raised. I countered all of them as I recall. If I didn't, and you haven't included them in your last post, feel free to highlight them now, and I will gladly reply. Anyone wishing to use the search function over at JF, in order to track down any of the points I "allowed to languish" is free to do so. Go find them and present them in this thread, I have no problem with that.

P.S. The "over-the-line comment" was tongue in cheek... you know that, I made that clear.

[MartinW 0]

You may remember an event, or series of them that is now commonly referred to as Climategate. A large body of e-mails and other documents were hacked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia. Included were a number authored by Professor Phil Jones, and some of those included discussions of how to discredit and silence AGW skeptics and how to "improve" the data to drive out those annoying things that were counter to the AGW position. Keep that idea of improving the data in mind as you read below.

Yep, well this is an example of something that has already been addressed over at Just Flight. But here's my reply again...

The so called climatgate affair has been the subject of not one, not two, but several investigations by different independent bodies. In every case no wrong doing was found, no substance behind the allegations. Pennsylvania University for example... "a panel of five senior faculty members, concluded Mann never participated in research or other scholarly activity that "deviated from accepted practices within the academic community."

 

As for the urge to defend themselves with better data, and the temptation to discredit the deniers...I'm not surprised, Phil Jones and the rest of the scientists that worked at CRU were being subjected to extreme intimidation, which included bombarding them with requests for data, swamping the system, which understandably resulted in extreme frustration.

 

Penn State investigated four charges of misconduct raised again Mann stemming from the e-mails: That he allegedly suppressed or falsified data; deleted or concealed e-mails and data; misused confidential information; and deviated from accepted academic practices.

In January the university cleared Mann of the first three charges but concluded the fourth - academic misconduct - merited further investigation.

The five faculty members conducting the follow-up investigation were unanimous in concluding this fourth charge, too, was unfounded.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climategate-scientist-cleared-in-inquiry-again/

 

 

A number of independent investigations from different countries, universities and government bodies have investigated the stolen emails and found no evidence of wrong doing. Focusing on a few suggestive emails, taken out of context, merely serves to distract from the wealth of empirical evidence for man-made global warming.

 

 And please don't claim that all of the bodies and universities were all lying, all in league with Mann, because they wanted more funding.

Everything you need to know regarding this is here...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm

Here too...

Why there's no sign of a climate conspiracy in hacked emails

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18238-why-theres-no-sign-of-a-climate-conspiracy-in-hacked-emails.html#.VGyT2E1ya1s

 

We can be 100 per cent sure the world is getting warmer

Forget about the temperature records compiled by researchers such as those whose emails were hacked. Next spring, go out into your garden or the nearby countryside and note when the leaves unfold, when flowers bloom, when migrating birds arrive and so on. Compare your findings with historical records, where available, and you'll probably find spring is coming days, even weeks earlier than a few decades ago.

You can't fake spring coming earlier, or trees growing higher up on mountains, or glaciers retreating for kilometres up valleys, or shrinking ice cover in the Arctic, or birds changing their migration times, or permafrost melting in Alaska, or the tropics expanding, or ice shelves on the Antarctic peninsula breaking up, or peak river flow occurring earlier in summer because of earlier snowmelt, or sea level rising faster and faster, or any of the thousands of similar examples.

None of these observations by themselves prove the world is warming; they could simply be regional effects, for instance. But put all the data from around the world together, and you have overwhelming evidence of a long-term warming trend.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/full/nature06937.html

 

 

Is it possible that tens of thousands of scientists have got it wrong? It is incredibly unlikely. The evidence that CO2 levels are rising is irrefutable, and the idea that rising levels lead to warming has withstood more than a century of genuine scientific scepticism.

 

 And the evidence that it's actually "our" CO2 rather than from a natural source...

 

How can we be sure that human emissions are responsible for the rising CO2 in the atmosphere? There are several lines of evidence. Fossil fuels were formed millions of years ago. They therefore contain virtually no carbon-14, because this unstable carbon isotope, formed when cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, has a half-life of around 6000 years. So a dropping concentration of carbon-14 can be explained by the burning of fossil fuels. Studies of tree rings have shown that the proportion of carbon-14 in the atmosphere dropped by about 2% between 1850 and 1954. After this time, atmospheric nuclear bomb tests wrecked this method by releasing large amounts of carbon-14.

Volcanic misunderstanding

Fossil fuels also contain less carbon-13 than carbon-12, compared with the atmosphere, because the fuels derive from plants, which preferentially take up the more common carbon-12. The ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere and ocean surface waters is steadily falling, showing that more carbon-12 is entering the atmosphere.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter.html#.VGyY9E1ya1s

http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/375666a0

[MartinW 0]

Some time before Climategate, CRU stated it no longer had the original raw data that it's entire climate science project was based on. They said, "We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added data." Value-added means that they've revised the data in various ways, to "improve" it. That value-added process is much of what Mr. Ian Harris' log entries refer to. This, of course, was around the time that Dr. Phil Jones of CRU was steadfastly refusing to release the raw data for peer review.

These, of course, are just examples, but telling ones.

 

 

First, lets remember that what you have presented us with is an email that "supposedly" was written by Ian Harris.  I'm not sure we have definitive evidence that the email was written by him, [although It probably was] or if it was, that it remains unaltered. We must remember that nefarious individuals carried out a criminal act, by hacking into the CRU database. They did this just prior to the Copenhagen summit on climate change, no doubt in order to discredit the summit. Would they also have edited the email? Who knows. But lets assume the emails are from him and unaltered. 

 

It's  worth putting this email into context. I seem to recall it was actually a 3 year diary. So all pieced together over a three year period, reflecting his frustration with the database. Thus much of it out of context.

 

 

You wonder why I'm skeptical of their conclusions? I wonder why you aren't.

 

 

I'm not sceptical John... because the CRU has been exonerated many times, after many thorough investigations.

I'm not John because the CRU does not constitute the entire scientific consensus on man made global warming. They are "one" of the worlds leading institutions studying climate change.

 

In addition to the CRU we have numerous other organisations worldwide, including the academies of science form no less than 80 different countries. Constituting something like 95% of active climate researchers all publishing papers endorsing the consensus opinion. Literally hundreds if not thousands of qualified individuals.

 

Does the so called climagate scandal therefore wipe out the worldwide consensus in regard to MMGW? No, of course not.

 

And in regard to "raw data" it's now been made available to anyone who wishes to peruse it...

 

Some of the contents of the hacked material, such as the "Harry_read_me.txt" file, might appear shocking, with its talk of manipulation and "tricks". But raw data almost always has to be "fixed".

For example, suppose you and your neighbour keep a record of the temperature where you live, and decide to combine your records to create an "official" record for your locality. When you compare records, however, you're surprised to find they are very different.

There are many reasons why this might be so. One or other thermometer might be faulty. Perhaps you placed your thermometer in an inherently warmer place, or where it was sometimes in direct sunshine, or took measurements at a different time of day, and so on. To combine the two records in any meaningful way, you'll need to adjust the raw data to account for any such factors.

Not doing so would be pretty dumb. Where possible, scientists should always look at their data in the context of other, comparable data. Such scrutiny can often reveal problems in the way one or other set of data was acquired, meaning it needs adjusting or discarding. Some apparent problems with the predictions of climate models, for example, have actually turned out to be due to problems with real-world data caused by the failure to correct for factors such as the gradual changes in orbits of satellites.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18238-why-theres-no-sign-of-a-climate-conspiracy-in-hacked-emails.html#.VGyT2E1ya1s

What about apparent attempts to avoid freedom of information requests?

 

In some emails, Jones – who has stepped down pending a review of what went on – discusses ways not to fulfil requests made under the UK's freedom of information laws. In one, he calls on other researchers to delete certain emails. While on the face of it this does not look good, whether any researchers broke any laws or breached any university guidelines remains to be determined.

In other cases, however, it is clear that researchers could not comply with freedom of information requests because they did not have the right to release all the data in question. There is also no doubt that climate change deniers have been using freedom of information requests to harass researchers and waste their time, with the CRU receiving more than 50 such requests in one week alone this year.

What's more, individual researchers have little to gain from giving away data and software they have spent years working on. Scientific careers depend on how many papers you publish. If you keep data to yourself, no one else can publish papers based on it before you do.

 

[MartinW 0]

That's incorrect. I did, when your responses became insulting, and I left that forum for good. Your post #12 above is leaning that way. Please don't make left-handed implications that those who don't agree with you are irrational or otherwise unenlightened.

As in you did get angry... Yes John a fair while ago on Just Flight. There was no anger in this thread which was obviously my point... and I hope it continues that way, I really do.

Sorry but I really do believe that those who ignore a huge scientific consensus, one of the largest scientific consensuses there has ever been, are indeed unenlightened, [and don't wish to enlighten themselves] either that or are biased due to another agenda. There are those of course who are incapable of understanding the relatively simple concepts involved, but obviously you don't fit into that category.

An example of being unenlightened to follow...

I recall when we debated this a while back, you expressed the opinion that mankind's emissions of CO2 were small in regard to the bulk of the atmosphere, and thus, could not possibly constitute a sufficient green house effect to warm the planet.

Forgive me if I remember the above incorrectly, it was a while ago.

Well this is a prime example of being unenlightened. It actually ignores scientific fact. It's a bit like me visiting the nuclear power plant you used to work in, and upon being given an explanation of how atomic fission occurs, denying the basic science behind it.

Again, apologies if I have remembered the previous conversation incorrectly, it was a while ago.

 

These, of course, are just examples, but telling ones

 

 

 

 

Anything else? Anything other than exonerated CRU scientists? Any other points in regard to the actual science, and why it's utterly wrong? Because this is the crux of the matter!

[MartinW 0]

Of course it won't go away. It's been happening since long before the human race was here to "cause" it to happen. The geological record is full of it.

Another example of being unaware of the science. In this case the instrumental temperature record, not to mention all of the other proxy data we have amassed.

Yes, the planet was warmer in the past. Climate is always changing. And those abrupt changes in the past were associated with natural greenhouse gas release. None of the previous warm periods had any help from humanity, of course not, we weren't there. And we know that the consequences of the abrupt release of greenhouse gases was always destructive, causing mass extinctions. For example the extinctions at the end of the Triassic, Permian and mid-Cambrian periods.

And what are we seeing today? The same consequences we saw in the past, namely rising temperature, rising sea levels, ocean acidification, etc.

A quick glance at the instrumental temperature record is enough to see the association between increse in temperature and "our" rising CO2 levels.

 

 

 

 

[allardjd 1,853]

Prolific, aren't you?

 

 

P.S. The "over-the-line comment" was tongue in cheek... you know that, I made that clear.

Shall I post it here and let others judge? If anyone were to make that kind of comment to another forum member here at Mutley's Hangar, he'd be suspended and warned. If he persisted, he'd be banned.

= = = = = = = = = = =

In all that you pretty much glossed over the main point of my post, which is that their data is trash, from undocumented and poorly documented revisions, corrections and "improvements" made to it and from stunningly poor software quality control. The latter is something I happen to have a little practical knowledge of from my career. The original raw data upon which the data they currently hold is based, is irrevocably lost by their own admission. They not only do not have the original raw data, neither do they have a good and complete record of the manipulations that have been applied to the dataset to get what they now have.

Quite aside from whether there was any breech of integrity in hiding and "improving" their data, I find it difficult to understand how any scientific organization can confidently publish conclusions based on a dataset with such a questionable history. If anyone working for me had ever done a third of the things with an important dataset that the Harris document suggests was done with the historical climate data, he'd have been looking for a job the next day.

If others have the same raw data, Jones could have gotten it from them. Apparently they do not, since he stated that the CRU raw data was irretrievably in the bit-bucket.

Based on what I believe to be the validity of their historical dataset, I remain skeptical about any pronouncements from the CRU at East Anglia.

I'm not sceptical John... because the CRU has been exonerated many times, after many thorough investigations.

Even if their actions were pure as the driven snow, their data, and thus their conclusions, are not. ...and it's skeptical, not sceptical.

= = = = = = = = = = =

You are certainly aware that we are now about 17 or 18 years into a "pause" in the observed warming of the Earth and that the projections made by the AGW gurus are increasingly diverging from actual measured temperatures. This divergence persists despite the fact that human generated CO2 continues to be released into the atmosphere at record rates. Weather is the noise in climate, but a 17 year flat spot in a set of data is a bit more than noise. Can you spell "statistically significant"?

The graph below charts the predictions of 90 climate change models using real world historical data. The green and blue dotted lines are actual observed surface and atmospheric data. The black dotted line is, I believe, an average of the 90 models predictions.

If these guys have such a great handle on what's going to happen to the temperature of the Earth over the next century, why couldn't they, with millennia of geological data, a thousand years or more of anecdotal historical data, a couple of centuries of organized human weather data collection (such as it was) and about forty years of satellite measurements, predict it for a decade ahead? That doesn't sound too hard unless their models put too much emphasis on the contribution of atmospheric CO2 and not enough on solar activity, which has been on the light side during much of that same period.

That's not a great demonstration of their ability to predict accurately. I'm not ready to sign on to committing trillions of dollars and the intentional and significant lowering of living standards in much of the world in an attempt to prevent something the scientific community has demonstrated little capability to predict accurately.

In a word, I'm skeptical.

= = = = = = = = = = =

One of your quotes asks whether it's possible that tens of thousands of scientists are wrong. It probably is possible, but it's more than possible that their beliefs on a topic could be mis-characterized.

The climate alarmists and their supporters are in the habit of claiming that about 97% of scientists believe in climate change. That was derived by a survey of six questions. The study team designated three levels of "consensus", two of which simply acknowledged that human activity is the source of some indeterminate level of warming.

Most everyone, 96.8%, fell into the first two bins and agreed to that statement - so do I.

The third level, which is that humans have caused MOST global warming since 1950, was actually endorsed by only about 0.3% of almost 12,000 respondents from the scientific community. The "over 97%" figure was arrived at by combining the 96.8% who acknowledge that humans cause some global warming with the 0.3% who blame mankind for most of it. That is not a consensus for the theory that AGW is a significant contributor to global warming, though it's often misinterpreted to be exactly that.

Claims of a vast consensus of scientists in this matter, and that the science is settled, are exaggerated.

I'm not exactly the only skeptic.