[Wonder Warthog]

"Seems to me that calling the observations “Cold Fusion” is premature and counterproductive.

I don't much care what it gets called. I'm not going to split hairs about nomenclature. My interest is in the physical evidence for the effect, of which there is a great deal.

[chrisser]

I don't much care what it gets called. I'm not going to split hairs about nomenclature. My interest is in the physical evidence for the effect, of which there is a great deal.

I agree on the interest. But I think, rightly or wrongly, "cold fusion" has been discredited and using that term to describe a process that has yet to be understood seems to be a roadblock in the way to research.

It's sad that science has become so politicized and grant based, but it is what it is.

If calling the experiments "unexplained thermal anomolies" or something gets more research focused, that would be progress towards the same end.

[Moonman62]

I'm not going to split hairs about nomenclature. My interest is in the physical evidence for the effect, of which there is a great deal.

According to your own posted "major media" article they are "largely unsubstantiated (and non-peer-reviewed)."