The Art Of Creating Doubt About Science

  • I thoroughly recommend this series of 10 twenty minute podcasts which investigate in detail the methods big business has used to protect themselves against the publication of research they see as a threat to their profits. The programmes concentrate on AGW propaganda and the debunking of the tobacco/cancer link. Includes interviews with people who worked on both sides of the fence - the hired guns who were tasked with spreading doubt and the scientists who were in the public eye at least discredited.

    One of the later podcasts also feature an interview with a socio-linguistics expert who describes how the very language of science is turned against it.

    Very relevant to the struggles that cold fusion faces every day. The link below leads to episode 6, but it is very east to scroll through them all.



    BBC Radio 4 - How They Made Us Doubt Everything, 6. ‘Reposition Global Warming as theory, not fact’

  • After listening to episodes 6 to 10, I cleansed my mental palette by watching this twenty minute video which describes essentially the opposite : an attempt to abolish doubt about the science. Enjoy!


    This video reminds me of people who think that if they can just find a mistake in the original paper by Fleischmann and Pons, the entire field of cold fusion will vanish. All those other papers by other researchers? They don't count.


    There is more than one paper about climatology. One paper could not possibly have the effect this video describes.

  • This video reminds me of people who think that if they can just find a mistake in the original paper by Fleischmann and Pons, the entire field of cold fusion will vanish. All those other papers by other researchers? They don't count.


    Well, this is exactly what is written here:

    How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heating Event been replicated in peer reviewed journals?

    JedRothwell

    Aug 14th 2017

                THHuxleynew wrote:

    OK. How could LENR be disproved?


    That's obvious! You just show there is a mistake in an experiment, and out it goes. ...


    But the real reason why the whole cold fusion field is disproved by the mistakes contained in the F&P paper describing the "1992 boil-off experiment" is that these errors not only compromise the reliability of the two fathers of the field, but also that of the of most important and representative researchers who selected that paper as the first document attached to their request to DoE for funding. This happened in 2004, 12 years after the F&P experiment. They had a lot of time for distinguishing foam from liquid water, but they didn't.


    The refusal to acknowledge these blatant mistakes continues even today:

    https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreviewofth.pdf

  • [This video reminds me of people who think that if they can just find a mistake in the original paper by Fleischmann and Pons, the entire field of cold fusion will vanish. All those other papers by other researchers? They don't count.]


    Well, this is exactly what is written here:


    You have hit the nail on the head. You are one of the very people I had in mind when I wrote that. You have the delusion that you have found a problem in a paper by Fleischmann and Pons. What's more, you think that because you found this imaginary problem, by some magic that makes all other papers by all other authors wrong. Even though these other papers could not possibly have the problem you dreamed up. Even if you were right, it would not begin to disprove cold fusion.


    You have once again done a masterful job of distorting what I wrote, making it out to be opposite of what it said:


    "OK. How could LENR be disproved?


    That's obvious! You just show there is a mistake in an experiment, and out it goes. ..."


    I meant that one experiment goes out. Not all the others! To dismiss the whole field, you have to find errors in all of the major experiments. Finding an error in one experiment, such as undetected recombination in an open cell, does not magically cancel out the experiments with closed cells. Finding imaginary foam (your delusion) cannot change the facts about experiments that did not have boil off events. It does not even cancel out this experiment, since there was heat before and after the boil off.



    The refusal to acknowledge these blatant mistakes continues even today:

    https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreviewofth.pdf


    On the contrary, I address this issue on p. 18. You do not agree with my analysis, but you are wrong.

  • methods big business has used to protect themselves against the publication of research they see as a threat to their profits


    It's futile effort: if you'll visit all links here 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 you'll get somewhat different impression about science of global warming - and it's all mostly based on openly published and freely accessible peer-reviewed studies.

  • You have hit the nail on the head. You are one of the very people I had in mind when I wrote that. You have the delusion that you have found a problem in a paper by Fleischmann and Pons. What's more, you think that because you found this imaginary problem, by some magic that makes all other papers by all other authors wrong. Even though these other papers could not possibly have the problem you dreamed up. Even if you were right, it would not begin to disprove cold fusion.


    The following comment explains in a good English that the F&P cells was full of foam during the boil-off phase: FP's experiments discussion . The commenter, after having watched the F&P video many times, agrees with me that the F&P paper was flawed.



    Well, as you know, the only experiment which is fully document with a video recording most phases of it, is the "1992 boil-off experiment". But, given its special importance, this single experiment is enough to draw global conclusions about the reality of CF..


    Everyone can look at the F&P video, which is available on the internet, and see the foam evolving inside the four cells. It means that F&P and the 5 authors of the 2004 letter to DoE, that is the gotha of CF field, were not able to distinguish foam from liquid water, or that they were not willing to admit that the 1992 experiment was totally flawed. This fact heavily affects the reliability of these people. It follows the unreliability of the results claimed for their experiments, the major in the field, and hence the substantial unreality of cold fusion.


    Quote

    On the contrary, I address this issue on p. 18. You do not agree with my analysis, but you are wrong.


    Not at all. Page18 does not address my issues, which I recently reminded here: High repeatability rate in the history of LENR

  • just like whats going on now with the fires in Cal, the news system grabs a 2 year old clip of a gender reveal incident,, slaps it into todays events and now people from all over will tell you that the fire are. No slow slip event, lets just skip the science all together..

  • Well, as you know, the only experiment which is fully document with a video recording most phases of it, is the "1992 boil-off experiment". But, given its special importance, this single experiment is enough to draw global conclusions about the reality of CF..

    Other experiments are much better documented than this one, with hundreds of pages more information, such as McKubre's or Miles.


    This is not a particularly important experiment. It has not been widely replicated. You are the only person who thinks it is specially important.


    By what logic does this allow you to draw "global conclusions about the reality of CF"? What does that even mean? How can an error in a boil off experiment reflect badly on other experiments that do not use that technique? As I said before, if someone finds a recombination error in an open cell experiment, how can that cast doubt on a closed cell experiment? That error is physically impossible in a closed cell. By the same token, a foam error is not possible when there is no boiling and no foam.


    What you say is illogical. It is preposterous.

  • Just like whats going on now with the fires in Cal, the news system grabs a 2 year old clip of a gender reveal incident,, slaps it into todays events and now people from all over will tell you that the fire are. No slow slip event, lets just skip the science all together..

    I do not know whether the TV news used a 2-year-old clip. I have not seen the TV news. But there is no doubt that one of the fires in CA was set by a gender reveal party. The people who set the fire called the fire department and provided them with videos and other proof. They apologized. Quote:


    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/0…eveal-party-wildfire.html


    "The device ignited four-foot-tall grass at El Dorado Ranch Park on Saturday morning, and efforts to douse the flames with water bottles proved fruitless, Capt. Bennet Milloy of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, known as Cal Fire, said Monday. The family called 911 to report the fire and shared photos with investigators."


    There are also video interviews with Capt. Milloy describing the event, so there is no doubt this is what happened.

  • And for the point ,, look for dates on youtube gender reveal party 2018 and see if they are the save videos as todays.

    If they are the same, that is malfeasance on the part of the TV news. Unless the TV news people say: "here is a similar incident from 2018."


    However, that has no bearing on the validity of statements made by officials at the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. I am sure their statements are correct, and this one fire was caused by a gender reveal party. There are many others fires in California, of course.

  • Other experiments are much better documented than this one, with hundreds of pages more information, such as McKubre's or Miles.


    No number of pages can be more informative than a video. The "1992 boil-off experiment" video shows the foam inside the cells, but the excess heat was calculated by F&P assuming it was all liquid water. This is an incredibly huge mistake, damaging the credibility of F&P and of all the CF researchers who supported the reliability of their claims, despite having had the opportunity to watch the video. Consequently, their experiments and results can't be considered reliable, as well.


    The images speak by themselves:

    How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heating Event been replicated in peer reviewed journals?


    JedRothwell

    Aug 13th 2017

    interested observer wrote:

    Does anyone seriously contend that an eyewitness of a Wright brothers flight did not have all the information needed to confidently state "those guys were flying?"


    Regarding having all the information you need, anyone who understands calorimetry and experiments who looks at the graphs from McKubre or the videos from Fleischmann will see all of the proof you need to be sure that cold fusion is real, and that it cannot be a chemical effect. It is no less convincing than the photos of airplanes flying over Huffman Prairie in 1905.

    Likewise, anyone who realizes that F&P mistook foam for liquid can infer the opposite. There is nothing more convincing than the video showing the foam in the tubes to conclude that CF is, unfortunately, a big and long lasting illusion.


    Quote

    This is not a particularly important experiment. It has not been widely replicated. You are the only person who thinks it is specially important.


    By what logic does this allow you to draw "global conclusions about the reality of CF"? What does that even mean? How can an error in a boil off experiment reflect badly on other experiments that do not use that technique? As I said before, if someone finds a recombination error in an open cell experiment, how can that cast doubt on a closed cell experiment? That error is physically impossible in a closed cell. By the same token, a foam error is not possible when there is no boiling and no foam.


    What you say is illogical. It is preposterous.


    F&P's 1992 experiment is the cornerstone of the entire CF's house of cards.


    It is also confirmed at the beginning of the recently issued "Review of the calorimetry of Fleischmann and Pons", where we can read [emphasis added]: "This is an introduction to the calorimetry in experiments by Fleischmann and Pons. From 1989 to 1993, they published a series of papers describing three methods of calorimetry: isoperibolic, phase change and a cooling curve analysis. These experiments culminated in boil-off experiments in which cells produced over 100 W of excess heat, and stayed hot for hours without input power."


    Actually, the F&P experiments culminated in two blatantly wrong conclusions:

    (1) it's not true that the cells produced 100W or any other amount of excess heat;

    (2) it's not true that the any single cell stayed hot for hours without input power.


    Furthermore, the just published comic book "Discover Cold Fusion" also highlights the essential role of F&P and the crucial importance of their open cell, whose model used in the "1992 boil-off experiment" is shown at the center of the cover, in the first inner page and fully described at page 6. There is only a small discrepancy: the bubbles were inside the cell, not outside!

  • Ascoli65I hope you buy a few copies of the comic book if it helps to prove your case. Though leaning on a comic for support seems a trifly flimsy.


    I would gladly buy some copies of the comic if I could do so anonymously. As far as I have seen in the few published pages, the pictures are very nice and expressive and I like the way the story is told. Beautiful cover. Hope it will have good success. I think its significance goes far beyond the history of cold fusion.