Isn’t it being taken for granted that the model of how the sun works is correct? What if it the sun works quite differently? What are sunspots? How might they influence the climate on earth?
I’m not necessarily saying Electric Universe theory is correct, but if it is, the sun is primarily a plasma phenomenon and isn’t mainly powered by fusion processes; it’s a whole different ballgame and electrical/magnetic phenomena may have far greater influence than is currently being considered.
Certainly, EU theorists are highly sceptical about the importance of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, viewing their influence as tiny in relation to solar effects.
However, I suppose some AGW sceptics may hold EU theorists in the same sort of contempt that they themselves are held by many warmists (despite the fact that there are many credible people who are/have been been involved in EU; at least one with a Nobel prize).
Some aspects of the framework within which scientifically controversial issues is discussed may be accepted on all sides, but what if a number of those aspects are misconceived? I applaud what’s going on at Climate Dialogue, but just because one has experts discussing something from different sides of a controversy, that doesn’t mean that everything that might be relevant is actually being discussed. It could be analogous to two groups arguing over whether the earth is round or square without paying attention to evidence that it might be spherical.