Yes, you are correct. I am paraphrasing. It should not be in quotes. I did not look up exactly what they said. Essentially, that is what they said.
I do not get the sense they believe there is something there. I get the sense they are playing political games, but I cannot image what games, or what purpose they serve. Judging by the Nature editorial that was published with the paper, this was a crude hatchet job intended to make people think cold fusion does not exist. That seems like an expensive hatchet job, so I do not know why they would bother. They could have accomplished the same thing with the usual bullshit editorial in Na
The Google paper in Nature was a masterpiece of obfuscation, misdirection, and confusion. I think I know what they did -- sort of -- because I asked them, and I heard
So I edited the post and removed the quotes to make to make it truer. I also added a couple links. I have more photos to upload but reached the max.
I do believe I heard those exact words, originally written, during the conference. From who? I do not know. Maybe Matt Trevithick? I will have to look out for that in the video talks.
I did not like the way that paper was written and I would have to review it again to say why. I remember it was within reading the first couple paragraphs I had a sinking feeling. But whatever you are thinking their intention is, look what is the result. There exist some researchers who see this paper as a reason to initiate research in LENR. This was stated at the conference. People are using this paper to justify a research proposal. I am baffled too, but this is how it is. I wonder how many got this jumpstart? I wonder who is still waiting for another sign? What will it take?
Artifacts have services and disservices. We could list them all out but the google paper performed a service of activating other research efforts.