More AGW discussion evolves...

We are close on many things. I have an optimism that technology for radical shifts in energy are very close, Rossi's 1mw cold fusion plant is supposed to be demonstrated tomorrow in the United States. This is an example I have watched with a healthy dose of skepticism. There are "deniers" that he has had to contend with. I have more of a wait and see attitude. I don't feel compelled to draw a conclusion. I want to see the raw data for myself, and follow the logic behind how a conclusion was drawn by the author. I probably see conclusions as a continuum. From very firm conclusions with massive supporting data (a la Newton) to conclusions that are conjecture but have a lot of support for those conjectures, to theory with conflicting data, to theory with shaky data, to conclusions with no data, to conclusions clearly falsified. I think AGW has moved along this continuum in one direction, then another. I think LENR (Rossi) has conclusion with some shakey data, but with reputations of enough PhDs to demand I not discount it... unless/until I can find something falsifiable.

An hypothesis, properly constructed is accepted to be true. Only the skeptic discipline can prove it wrong through the experimental process. Science accepts to be true what cannot be falsified. The theory of AGW must be accepted to be true on the onset. Supporting experiments are nice but they don't prove the theory to be more true. It is the problems, I have shared most of them with you. A priori, effecting approaches to data collecting. Data missing (disappeared), Datum discounted--not even appearing in the literature--datum that should at least be identified as anomalous--are examples of the problems. A theory that works for a decade or two but not for centuries and not for eons makes me hesitate. So between us, you are comfortable accepting the conclusion I am not. You may be extremely doubtful about cold fusion, but I have not formed the opposite point of view. Should I, it will be after I see the raw data, and inspect the apparatus--and then only until I can reproduce it in my lab will I be comfortable about fairly solid conclusion. It is ironic that what may be the most doubtful experiment in science is the answer to the "dubious-to-me" AGW in the end.

I am a fan of Soren Kierkegaard, who said in contrast to the Hegelian Dialectic: "Truth is often found in the tension of the paradox". There is some value in allowing the tension of what appear to be opposite conclusions work. Many times the polemic is wrong or not resolvable. It is a mistake to force synthesis.
Too much of our approach to truth is on the horns of the dilemma: polar opposites hastily forced to synthesis.

We stand on the threshold of great opportunity. These sorts of doubts and turmoil, sincerity and insincerity, are often on the cusp of tectonic paradigm shift.