Replies

Maybe we think your data is junk as is your continuous whining. If the data is so solid, the world (and scientific community) would be doing back flips, but it is not. You posted Rossi’s data over and over, but it wasn't real data or useful data. It was absolute junk. He was a fraud and the defense of him is plain silliness that completely undermines your credibility. The very way this silly article is written smacks of junk science,
“Your humble correspondent.” My global warming believer colleagues always said the same thing, “the data this..., the data that..., the data says.... Yet they were completely unwilling to look at all of the data. The data seems interesting in this case, but I'm not sure that I buy it. The fact that others cannot reproduce it causes me great pause. If others cannot reproduce it, it ain't science! I definitely don't believe the hype and junk science approach to this potential technology. It is not a scientific or political conspiracy against this technology. It is science that is against this technology. Want to impress me? Can the hype and build a usable prototype that can light up a neighborhood and do so in an open and scientific way that can actually be verified by independent observers. Again, extraordinary claims MUST be backed by extraordinary evidence if you want it to be considered science, it needs to be repeatable.

"Maybe we think your data is junk as is your continuous whining. If the data is so solid, the world (and scientific community) would be doing back flips, but it is not. You posted Rossi’s data over and over, but it wasn't real data or useful data. It was absolute junk. He was a fraud and the defense of him is plain silliness that completely undermines your credibility. The very way this silly article is written smacks of junk science,

I'm not talking about Rossi's data, nor the specific article heading this thread. I'm talking about the two scientific publications I posted to you which show the experimental evidence for cold fusion. Replication of both heat excess and helium production. Pure scientific evidenmce. But like all the other skeptopaths, you wiggle and weasel and ignore the science.

"The data seems interesting in this case, but I'm not sure that I buy it. The fact that others cannot reproduce it causes me great pause. If others cannot reproduce it, it ain't science!

Others HAVE reproduced it. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge or even READ the evidence doesn't gainsay the science.

"Again, extraordinary claims MUST be backed by extraordinary evidence if you want it to be considered science, it needs to be repeatable.

You can repeat this BS all you like. That dpesn't make it part of the practice of science. Science knows nothing about "extraordinary claims"....just reproducible evidence. I suggest you actually look up the history of that phrase. It does NOT originate in science. And the experimental evidence for LENR "has" been repeated. Multiple times.