On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> FURTHERMORE, the notion that cold fusion results are unconvincing or close > to the noise is also gross ignorance. People who say this know nothing > about experimental significance. I never said the results were unconvincing ... as I've written before, there appears to be something going on but what that something is and a theory about what causes it is missing. > > The tritium findings alone are definitive. After Storms, Bockris and Will > published in 1989 and 1990, all doubts about the existence of cold fusion > were erased. Any scientist who questions this either knows nothing about > the results, or he is an ignorant fool such as Taubes or Huizenga. This is > like questioning the existence of radioactivity or X-rays in 1900. > Again, I was talking about testable theories not about observations. > > After Fleischmann and McKubre published their calorimetric data, all > doubts about the excess heat were put to rest. If you think it might be > chemical, the way D. Morrison did, you are innumerate. You do not > appreciate the difference between 1 and 1,700 (the factor by which > Fleischmann's results exceed the limits of chemistry). > > I assert categorically: anyone who questioned these things after 1990 is > either irrational or an ignorant fool. > Again with the emotionally charged rhetoric. This is the kind of inappropriate response that allows this list to veer off course into incivility. (snip, snip, snip) People are often right about one thing but wrong about another. Or > objective and careful about one subject, and bigoted fools about another. > The human mind is not uniform or consistent. > > Opinions about the irrationality and inconsistency of the human mind are not what we're talking about. [mg]
