The California Energy Crisis - Information & Forum Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The California Energy Crisis - Information & Forum

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: zonder who wrote (1642)	3/30/2004 11:47:41 AM
From: Rock_nj	Read Replies (1) of 1715

I don't think it's a huge conspiracy at all. I think it's just the way that science works controversal issues out. It takes a lot of time and persistence on the part of proponents. No doubt, those who are interested in proving a controversal theory are fighting an uphill battle when all the official sources for funding and patent protection are cut off. Not a conspiracy, but they certainly don't have those who pull the strings in high places assisting them in achieving their goal in any way. I do notice that a lot of the cold fusion skeptics do not stay current on the latest research. Many point to studies and arguements that are years old and rather outdated. Being skeptical is fine, but often people are simply ignorant, rather than skeptical. A great source for current cold fusion info is: coldfusioninfo.com The people on this website did an interesting study late last year where they had email exchanges with some of the top cold fusion skeptics in the science world. Incredibly, although many claimed to be current on the goings on in the controversial cold fusion field, many of them couldn't cite a cold fusion study or paper that they had read recently. Many cited studies that were a decade or more old to make their anti-cold fusion case. Obviously, these guardians of scientific truth aren't all that interested in the truth after all when the basis of their opinions is data that is a decade or more out of date. If they want to review the lastest cold fusion data and stick to their conlcusion that it's all hogwash and give reasons why, fine. But, they should at least stay current with what's going on if they're going to be an official skeptic on an issue. Certainly, many of the issues raised against cold fusion, like reproducibility, have been addressed, which is why the DOE is willing to take another look.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next