Park likes to brag that he has never read a paper on cold fusion. His books and statements about the subject do not include a single true fact about it, so it is plausible that he has not. The editors of Sci. Am. told me they have read no papers and I believe them. Their assertions can only be the product of invincible ignorance. They are too absurd to be lies. Why would a person lie in such a way that anyone familiar with the subject will instantly catch them out?
Park may not have read anything, but he does know a little about cold fusion. I have proof of that. Photographic proof. I have a photo of Park eating lunch with two prominent cold fusion researchers just before ICCF10. He looks uncomfortable! So he has been briefed on the subject. I doubt that he believes a word of it. If he suspected it might be true, why would he keep attacking it, year after year? Even assuming he has no respect for the truth, and no interest in it, why would he keep putting himself on the wrong side of history. There are skeptics who say they have no interest in the truth. Taubes once told a researcher (Ed Storms, I think it was), "I don't care whether any of the stuff is true or not. My goal is to sell books." Taubes does not care that he nearly destroyed the burgeoning career of Bockris' grad student, and helped suppress a potentially important discovery. His only concerns are money, influence, and getting ahead by stepping on people's faces. He is also extraordinarily stupid and he has no grasp of junior-high level science. Malevolence and stupidity are the most dangerous combination. See "The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity:" http://www.cantrip.org/stupidity.html Many skeptics disavow their own influence, saying: "So what if I oppose this? Little old me, what power do I have to stop it?" Park, on the other hand, bragged about he and Zimmerman would "root out and fire" anyone in the government who believes in cold fusion or advocates research. He revels in his own political influence. He is not shy about pulling strings and destroying people's lives and careers. So he has to know that being wrong and losing in academic politics can have grave consequences. Even if he is old and finished with his career, I do not think he wants to go down in history as a laughingstock. So I conclude that up until now he must have been utterly confident that cold fusion is what he says: criminal fraud and lunacy. That being the case, I am pleased to hear that he has decided to shut up about it. Whether that is because he has lost interest, or because he now suspects it might be true makes no difference to me. He will never say anything good. Even if he admits it is real, he will only use that as an opportunity to sow more mischief. He will dream up some new smear to make Fleischmann, Pons and the others look bad. Nothing good can come from him. - Jed
