We know what to do, we almost know how to do it, we're just not able to build the machine to do it yet.
I'd make a slight correction to that. It's not that we're not able to build the machine, it's just that we haven't built it yet. We're pretty sure we know what to do and how to do it, but we haven't finished building the machine to do it so we're not entirely sure.
I wonder at the tone of the "sceptics" (scientists themselves) in the article. If this project is indeed based on real science, and has produced some incremental breakthroughs in laser technology, then why the vehement language, such as "snake-oil salesman"? Is it just professional jealousy ( my project and idea are better than his, why am I not getting this funding?") or is the approach this team is using fatally flawed?
Well, firstly it's worth noting that only one person quoted could really be described as "vehement", the other expressing skepticism about it was simply saying that he doesn't think it's there yet and bigger lasers are needed. It's hard to say why anyone would describe this as snake-oil, but it may be worth noting that the National Resources Defence Council that he is a member of is an environmental charity and lobby group, and not actually anything to do with nuclear research. From what I can tell from their website, it appears his concerns, which may well be justified, are to do with the politics and funding behind the establishment of NIF, and nothing to do with the actual science. I doubt he would have anything bad to say about the science itself, but he believes that the case for NIF was not adequately made and that it was pushed through due to political and financial interests despite not actually being capable of producing sustainable fusion.
There does tend to be some rivalry between researchers in inertial confinement fusion, which is what is discussed here, and magnetic confinement, which is what ITER will test. So far magnetic confinement is ahead, having achieved break-even (the point where you generate as much power as you put in). However, the rivalry mostly consists of saying things along the lines of "Their approach might work, but we're going to get there first.", rather than anything particularly nasty. However, I don't think that's really what influenced the comments here.
I would think that the scientific community would welcome any well funded, reality-based project; these projects tend to produce unexpected ancillary benefits, employ talented people who later move on to bigger ideas (think NASA), and have that chance of actually accomplishing their goal.
Ah, if only scientists weren't human.
So why the nasty tone of the naysayers in the article? Did they simply interview the wrong people to get an opposing viewpoint?
Well, as I say, I don't think there was actually much of a nasty tone. The only quote that could be viewed as nasty was the snake-oil comment, and it seems that was probably aimed more at the politicians and management involved than the actual science and scientists.
). 
