At 05:36 PM 9/4/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
There is any amount of anti-cold fusion material from mainstream
sources. It has no depth.
"Mainstream"? Jed, you've swallowed a bill of goods. There is no
mainstream. Or, rather, there are many. Is the ACS "mainstream"? Is
Oxford University Press . . .
Please note that I did not say that all mainstream media is opposed
to cold fusion.
Nor did I say that they were. I said "there is no mainstream." It's a
myth, an appearance, a phenomenon without boundaries. However,
sometimes these are useful.
That has never been the case. Every year there have been one or
two articles in mainstream mass media sympathetic to cold fusion.
However, mass media articles attacking cold fusion have greatly
outnumbered those supporting it. I have not made a careful tally
but that is my impression based on Google alerts, Google searches,
and other sources.
This year the ratio may have shifted somewhat to more favorable
articles but there are still many from the opposition.
That matches my impression, except that I wouldn't say that a
"mainstream media" article that repeats the old canards is "attacking
cold fusion." An important difference. They merely are doing what
mainstream media do, repeat stuff because it is cheaper than doing
new investigative reporting. You want to change that, you have to
spoon-feed them.
My favorite example of a journal with a split personality was the
Journal of Fusion Energy, September 2004 issue which has an attack
on cold fusion on page 161 and a long paper about cold fusion in
China by X. Z. Li On page 217.
What is the attack paper? (I know about Li's paper.) Is it available on-line?
