1. Like almost anyone who remembers the cold fusion craze and fallout (hehe) of the late 80s and early 90s, I'm extremely skeptical. 2. The fact that this come

1. Like almost anyone who remembers the cold fusion craze and fallout (hehe) of the late 80s and early 90s, I'm extremely skeptical. 2. The fact that this comes from researchers from the US Navy does lend it some credence, but I'm still very skeptical. 3. The reporting in this article is a good example of how the whole "fair and balanced" approach to reporting sometimes backfires when it comes to science reporting. Paul Padley, a physicist at Rice University who reviewed Mosier-Boss's published work, said the study did not provide a plausible explanation of how cold fusion could take place in the conditions described. ... But Steven Krivit, editor of the New Energy Times, said the study was "big" and could open a new scientific field. The neutrons produced in the experiments "may not be caused by fusion but perhaps some new, unknown nuclear process," added Krivit, who has monitored cold fusion studies for the past 20 years. So in most people's mind, there's this struggle and controversy within the scientific community about this topic, but one of these sources is quite a bit more credible than the other, at least to me. This has been a primary tactic of the "Intelligent Design" and the anti-climate-change groups for quite some time.