See Los Alamos nuclear chemist Ed Storms's peer reviewed paper published in the German counterpart of the British "Nature":

Status of Cold-Fusion (2010)

You're on.

Storms claims that there is no good theory to explain the excess heat measurements. He does not deny that the experiments he surveys are overwhelming evidence for the fulfillment of Ramsey's criterion.

The prediction market Intrade judged cold fusion to be replicated.

One might argue that because Intrade is a real-money prediction market, that it is less valid than Ideosphere.

However, what is going to happen to Ideosphere's reputation if it judges cold fusion to be false and, later, the NYT, WSJ, WashPo and the Secretary of Energy along with all of its national labs is saying it is true -- when a real money exchange had it right years before?

The paper is a statistical survey of experiments reporting excess heat.

What's "nutty" is claiming that Popper's fasifiability criterion pertains to experiments rather than theories. Experiments that are not reproduced successfully by some others merely evidences the incompetence of those others relative to those who have reproduced.

However, it is not clear that what is being falsified by experiment here is the current physical theory, rather than merely the currently fashionable interpretation of physical theory.

Wikipedia on Naturwissenschaften:

Naturwissenschaften, The Science of Nature is a monthly peer-reviewed scientific journal published by Springer Science+Business Media covering all aspects of the natural sciences relating to questions of biological significance.

Argument by assertion doesn't make it with me Karl.

Read the Naturwissenschaften article by Ed Storms to which I linked to justify my claim.

Ethan Siegel writes: "All good science is repeatable: set up an experiment, tell me how you did it, report your results, and with the proper equipment, I should be able to set up a similar experiment, do the same things you did and get the same results. If I can’t, and others can’t, you didn’t do good science."

Oh yeah?

The preamble to the DoE's 1989 cold fusion review panel's report reads:

"Ordinarily, new scientific discoveries are claimed to be consistent and reproducible; as a result, if the experiments are not complicated, the discovery can usually be confirmed or disproved in a few months. The claims of cold fusion, however, are unusual in that even the strongest proponents of cold fusion assert that the experiments, for unknown reasons, are not consistent and reproducible at the present time. However, even a single short but valid cold fusion period would be revolutionary." --Norman Ramsey

Dr. Norman Ramsey Jr., Nobel laureate and professor of physics at Harvard University was the only person on the the 1989 Department of Energy cold fusion review panel to voice a dissenting opinion. Ramsey insisted on the inclusion of this preamble as an alternative to his resignation from the panel. The committee acquiesed because he was its co-chair and the only Nobel laureate on the committee.

Dr. Ramsey's condition has been fulfilled hundreds of times over the last quarter century and there has been absolutely no acknowledgement by the APS of its crime.

Los Alamos nuclear chemist Ed Storms's peer reviewed paper published in the German counterpart of the British "Nature":

Status of Cold-Fusion (2010)

F&P clearly did not have an adequate theory and even they admitted as much. Even with an adequate theory, development is orders of magnitude more expensive than research. WIthout an adequate theory, you have to have an industrial laboratory the size of GE running in an Edisonian mode of scattershot trial and error.

It could be demonstrated to be fusion by either producing enough heat that it couldn't possibly be a chemical reaction (which didn't happen), or observing neutrons (which were not being generated).

There are lots of peer reviewed papers reporting excess heat well in excess of chemical levels -- papers that have not been even so much as criticized by the true believers in current interpretation of physical theory. See http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/S...

Once we realize that, we realize that Oriani was claiming to violate a whole lot of physical theory with scanty evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and Oriani apparently didn't provide that.

You can't have it both ways. You either can have scientific method where experiment is permitted to be published that falsifies currently fashionable interpretation of physical theory, or you can have theocracy. Its that simple. Oriani's experimental evidence was sufficient for Nature's own peer reviewers. It was not a peer-review rejection. It was an editor veto of Nature's own peer reviewers. This is scientific misconduct, pure and simple.

Nature could indeed publish a "cold fusion" paper if somebody definitely had cold fusion going and had good evidence for it.

Nature then proceeded to block additional empirical-only papers from Oriani on the grounds that he offered no theory to explain the results -- results that falsified currently fashionable interpretation of physical theory. Science starts with observation and theory ends with observation that fasifies theory. Nature is engaging in gross scientific misconduct and it is a pattern of behavior.

Yeah you know what's _really_ outmoded?

Control groups as a means of teasing causation out of correlation.

I mean, just think what would happen if *shudder* there were 50 different governments each controlling their own borders, testing out different social theories?

People with bad social theories might leave you and those that agree with your good social theory to benefit only yourselves, while they would go off and form another experimental group providing additional human ecology data for the social sciences.

They might figure out that you are the slimy parasite you are and that would be bad .

Is sleep deprivation an early stage symptom?

A clear example of why the a strong Federal government is necessary is the case of Louisiana's attorney general telling Texas authorities not to bring Ebola victim waste to a disposal site in Louisiana.

Of course, State sovereignty is the moral equivalent of slavery so it is essential that the racists in Louisiana be taught a lesson by Obama commandeering the Louisiana National Guard to air drop waste from Texas Ebola victims on racist Louisiana with its badges of slavery -- especially the waste of Ebola victims that died for your racism -- sorta like Jesus or something. And if you think that's insane or horrifying or something, it just means you're in need of a "teachable moment" yourself before you start bull-whip crackin' that black man whose been comin' roun' to see hair-of-golden-brown, Lilly Belle you Southern Man you.

So Mr. Anonymous doesn't like the fact that I started with the earliest example of scientific misconduct of the authorities. Most likely he dislikes it because it is so damning of his theocracy. I could provide a list of peer reviewed papers, none of which have had even the slightest criticism raised against them in any specific way -- just the blanket condemnation of the rioting mob calling itself the APS.

However, it's probably better to have Los Alamos nuclear chemist Ed Storms's peer reviewed paper published in the German counterpart of the British "Nature" (since, as we have already seen "Nature" is corrupt):

Status of Cold-Fusion (2010)

Good grief. Absence of assertion isn't assertion of absence. More importantly, if you aren't allowed to publish experiments that falsify theory -- in this case the theory that excess heat in nuclear quantities cannot be produced in the absence of so-called "nuclear manifestations" -- then what's the point of pretending to have a scientific method?