It seems logical. Tell that to Bockris. asking for evidence before accusing of fraud could be a good policy... When you are challenged by someone results instead doing the Huizenga-style accusation, the good procedure would be to ask for more evidences, notice shadows in the protocol, ask checking...
If allegations seems solid, however applying usual laws, can make the case more credible. I observe that accusations of frauds are too easy to avoid facing the measurements questions, and to face the experimentator asking him details, battling on the land... About libeling cases PopSci and Rossi, here is my cri du coeur http://www.lenrnews.eu/how-can-popsci-claim-andrea-rossi-is-a-convicted-scam-artist/ what is strange is that few month ago it took me few hours (see the timeline http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?2384-History-of-Rossi-E-cat ) to read the report of statement of dismissal of pursuit in italian newspapers, and that Wikipedia refused to admit that decision exists because no 3rd party source, and preferred to delete the page... something is rotten there. note they refused to add 3rd party interview of Bo Hoistad by IbTimes, yet included links to cassandra curse blog... very rotten. it is not defamatory, it is based on evidence. It would be defamatory (and probably false) to claim they are paid by satanists... I think that groupthink, sincere delusion, altruistic enthusiasm to protect weaker people from evil pseudo-scientists is a better explanation. It seems to be their official position. Saying they protect their illusion, their interests, is psychology question. Dunno if it fall in defamatory claims, of is fair analysis, if I base my reasoning on Roland Benabou theory of mutual assured delusion? maybe people used with legal question can comment. what is the limit between defamation and raising concern of interest conflicts, possible delusion,... 2014-01-28 Axil Axil <[email protected]> > http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/01/ ... > o-forward/<http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/01/climate-scientists-defamation-suit-allowed-to-go-forward/> > > Calling a scientist a fraud could be defamatory. > > > *Quote:* > Accusing a scientist of conducting his research fraudulently, manipulating > his data to achieve a predetermined or political outcome, or purposefully > distorting the scientific truth are factual allegations. They go to the > heart of scientific integrity. They can be proven true or false. If false, > they are defamatory. If made with actual malice, they are actionable. > >
