These people seem to be factless stupid amateurs. They think democracy includes the right to have an opinion about everything even if you don't have the most elementary facts.
Not much from the learned skeptics.What could they say? Bob Park is silent; I have sent him up-to-dated information re the ECat. I just have published "The Silence of the Skeptics' at my blog On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Some comments in this news article reflect the attitude of most members of > the public toward cold fusion: > > > http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6743923/the-domestic-politics-of-oil.thtml > > One person brought up the Rossi results. The others all rejected the > claims, with comments such as: > > "Daniel Maris, a podcast I listen to (Skeptics Guide to the Universe - who > are very pro-AGW if it matters) comprehensively debunked that cold fusion > story a couple of weeks ago." > > "Cold fusion! pull the other one." > > "Cold fusion? I expect you'll get a lot of abuse from nasty skeptics, but > not from me Daniel. I can remember how people laughed at the idea of the > Infinite Improbability Drive. . . . Throwaway rant: . . .1) Cold Fusion > has also been verified at the University of Lagos. It is a truly wonderful > investment opportunity.. . . ." > > "Cold Fusion- nothing but a scam." > > These attitudes are also held by the editors at Sci. Am. and Nature, by the > editors at Wikipedia, at the DoE, and of course by Robert Park. In that > sense Cude is correct. Cold fusion is as "fringe" as anything can be. No one > who follows the mass media would argue with that! > > - Jed > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
