The problem is, there is little "hard science" supporting cold fusion. Cold fusion, at this point, seems to be following the trajectory of a
pathological science--where there is a great deal of initial interest, but, as experiments become more stringent and results don't materialize, interest tends to wane until only a handful of dévotés continue to research the topic.
With such a paucity of "hard science" to discuss, the real interest in this topic does seem to center around its current star.
"The problem is, there is little "hard science" supporting cold fusion. Cold fusion, at this point, seems to be following the trajectory of a pathological science--where there is a great deal of initial interest, but, as experiments become more stringent and results don't materialize, interest tends to wane until only a handful of dévotés continue to research the topic.""With such a paucity of "hard science" to discuss, the real interest in this topic does seem to center around its current star.
WHAT "paucity"?? Have you actually spent ANY in the "Library" time at the LENR-CANR site?? There is plenty of evidence to discuss. The problem is that "mainstream scienctists" come in pre-prejudiced, just as you have, without bothering to actually examine the evidence.