Jed,
I watch the conventional media with both a telescope and a microscope on
this subject matter. I agree with you. And I think it's more than an inch.
"Largely discredited" literally means there is some credit.
You are seeing the mechanisms of mass media and control of public opinion
at work. Possibly hedging their bets. Trying to make subtle shifts.
Possibly trying to change their image over time.
Maybe your work is starting to pay off. Maybe the work of the cf
researchers worldwide is starting to pay off.
Now...for a titillating mini-scoop: An unnamed government source told me a
few weeks ago that another government physicist was able to speak directly
to some top editors at Nature about a few matters in physics. Among them,
he mentioned CF. Word is, and this, granted, is third-hand, that their ears
were perked and they were curious.
By the way, have you seen the New Energy Times mascot? Porksie the flying pig?
http://newenergytimes.com/Images/Porksie.jpg
Cheers,
Steve
At 12:26 PM 10/26/2005, you wrote:
The Google Alerts program brought me the following link:
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051024/full/4371224a.html
I am not a subscriber to nature.com, so I do not know what the article
says, but Google brought me a partial quote:
"Physics: Far from the frontier
Nature.com (subscription) - London,England,UK
... problem with reports of tabletop fusion is that for most scientists
they evoke memories of the notorious, and now largely discredited, 'cold
fusion' claim made ... "
Note that it says: "now largely discredited . . ." Perhaps it is my
imagination, but I detect a slight change in emphasis. Unfortunately, at
this rate it will take a hundred years for Nature to admit its mistake.
- Jed
