This study explores the relationship between forensic, deliberative, and epideictic modes of rhetoric in the cold fusion controversy. The purpose of this exploration is threefold: (a) to show the interactions between these three modes of rhetoric more comprehensively than they have been shown in previous case studies of scientific controversies; (b) to examine the ways in which all three modes have shaped the emerging scientific consensus and, further, through a close analysis of key experimental reports, to reveal how forensic rhetoric in the cold fusion controversy has come to occupy pride of place; and (c) to suggest how the events in this controversy support Robert Sanders's contention that rhetorical practices interact with scientific practices to allow diverse researchers to arrive at constructive agreements—not merely political ones—on both research findings and ways to resolve competing interpretations.