Cold Fusion / Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions: Do Discussions of “Fringe” Science Harm Our Credibility?

I get occasional emails from professional engineers telling me that I’m harming our site’s credibility by suggesting that cold fusion is legitimate science.  Here’s a fellow who’s not too sanguine on the subject:

Cold fusion has yet to be lifted out of the pit of porn science….The most accurate information that I have read about cold fusion or low energy nuclear reactions was “Cold Fusion: still too ridiculous for Marvel Comics…. I caution against promoting all “interesting” energy topics when the science is dubious. In my opinion, it weakens the message you are trying to present by linking the questionable (at best) with proven technology.

I appreciate the tip, and clearly the guy is correct that we need to respect the difference between proven technology and science fiction.  But I’m not sure the distinction is as black and white as he suggests. Also, I point out a couple of things:

1) It seems to me that there are many serious and credible proponents of low energy nuclear reactions.  Yes, they form a slim minority in the world of accepted science.  But if E=MC^2, i.e., if a little bit of mass is equivalent to a huge amount of energy, which is something that we’ve been verifying experimentally for almost a century, is it really that incredible that this process may be subject to human control? Must this process absolutely happen at 100 million degrees K? Couldn’t that assumption simply have been an intellectual error on our part? I don’t understand why everyone’s so jacked up about this. It’s not like we’re talking about things that make no sense, or that violate some fundamental theory of physics.

And more importantly:

2) I think we all share the viewpoint that the world of science as it will exist by the year 2050 will bear only partial resemblence to what it is today.  Considering the ever-accelerating rate of change in the development of technology — and the theory that underlies it — it strikes me as wrong to ridicule scientists’ sincere efforts in their exploration of areas that happen to be unproven today.  While I’m 100% open to constructive criticism (in fact, I actively seek it out), I have to say that keeping an open mind about the possibilities for the energy of tomorrow is integral to who we are here.