"Fleischmann's ACS report is a re-presentation of research from the 1990s, showing that his calorimetry measurements were accurate. Bob Park, at the University of Maryland, U.S., agrees, but concedes that 'there are some curious reports - not cold fusion, but people may be seeing some unexpected low-energy nuclear reactions.'"

“When a new truth enters the world, the first stage of reaction to it is ridicule, the second stage is violent opposition, and in the third stage, that truth comes to be regarded as self-evident."

SF Gate, "Cold Fusion Rides Again," March 25, 2002
"As the world's leading debunker of tabletop fusion, Park has put himself at the center of the controversy. If he's right, historians will look back on him as a sane voice in a wilderness of wild claims. If he's proven wrong, though, his fall from grace will have come many years too late. Few, if any, American scientists have done more than Park to discourage the pursuit of tabletop forms of nuclear fusion."

CBC (Quirks and Quarks) "Cold Fusion Heats Up," Dec. 13, 2003
"Park ... isn't convinced that cold fusion is a real phenomenon, and won't be until we actually see a working cold fusion generator available."

Bob Park, "What's New, Cold Fusion: Just When You Think Life Can't Get Any Sillier, Aug. 6, 2004
The cover of Popular Mechanics for August warns that "Cold Fusion Technology Enables Anyone To Build A Nuke From Commonly Available Materials." A nuke? The cold fusion guys can't brew a cup of tea. The article: "Dangerous Science" is by Jim Wilson, whose cover story in April proclaimed the dawn of the age of atomic aircraft powered by hafnium-178 isomer reactors, which don't exist and never will http://www.aps.org/WN/WN04/wn041604.cfm. OK, so grownups aren't supposed to read Popular Mechanics, but if the cold fusion faithful think they're going to get a cover story in Time, get over it. DOE recently announced that cold fusion research will be reviewed, and believers imagined they'd been vindicated http://www.aps.org/WN/WN04/wn040204.cfm. Wilson says Eugene Mallove of Infinite Energy Magazine assured him that the experimental evidence for cold fusion is too compelling for DOE to ignore. Mallove couldn't be reached for comment.

[Ed: Mallove couldn't be reached because he had been murdered several months prior.]

Nature, "US review rekindles cold fusion debate," Dec. 2, 2004
"Although the quality of research has improved, no one should buy into cold fusion just yet."

Bob Park, "What's New, "Colder-Than-Ever Fusion: This Book Won't End The Controversy," Dec. 10, 2004
"Several cold-fusion proponents took the trouble this week to send WN the announcement of a new book, The Rebirth of Cold Fusion: Real Science, Real Hope, Real Energy by Steven Krivit and Nadine Winocur. It was clearly timed to coincide with release of the DOE report. The book drew praise from Arthur C. Clarke, Brian Josephson, and Martin Fleischmann, among others. It's not in the bookstores here yet, but Amazon lists it. The authors are editors of New Energy Times, which calls itself "Your best source for cold fusion news and information." Krivit has a bachelor's degree in business management, Winocur maintains a private psychotherapy practice. They've got the right qualifications."

NPR (Living on Earth) Cold Fusion: "A Heated History," Sept. 30, 2005
"I've never seen anything quite like cold fusion. It's an interesting phenomenon. ... I guess I'm still skeptical."

Chemical & Engineering News, "Cold Fusion Makes Its Case," April 23, 2007
"Physicist Robert L. Park of the University of Maryland, an outspoken critic of cold fusion, was reserved when asked to comment on the ACS symposium and the latest results. "What's new is that the faithful researchers have decided to stop sulking and rejoin the community of scientists," Park said. He takes this as "a positive sign," and the results "look interesting." But so far "there's not much to show for it," he added."

Bob Park, "What's New: March Madness: Cold Fusion Peaks Around The Vernal Equinox," March 23, 2007
"On this day 18 years ago, the University of Utah announced the discovery of cold fusion without giving any technical details (WN 24 Mar 89) . The peak came three weeks later when Stanley Pons received a standing ovation at the annual ACS Meeting in Dallas, but by June it was over. The Utah research was exposed as a pitiful embarrassment. For years the faithful sulked at their own annual meetings held at swank resorts around the world. There they could congratulate each other on their progress. Each year another experiment would be hailed as proof, but never survived replication. A few years ago, however, the bolder of the faithful began to reemerge from the dark, giving papers at professional society meetings. They now prefer to call their field Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR),and they held a session at the APS March Meeting in Denver. Next week they will hold a session at the ACS Meeting in Chicago. Once again, there is a new experiment that is being hailed as proof-at-last. Who knows, maybe this will be the one."

Nature, "Cold Fusion is Back," March 29, 2007
"Others are less convinced. "It still looks a lot like 1989," says vocal cold-fusion critic Robert Park at the University of Maryland. "If anything is going on, it's not fusion."

That cold-fusion critics such as Park even acknowledge there might be any effect at all is a major change in attitude, says Frank Gordon from the US Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center in San Diego, California, who is also working on low-energy nuclear reactions with colleagues Stan Szpak and Pamela Mosier-Boss."