So is anyone who does not think LENR is proven science a pathological skeptic?
No, there are many other reasons why a person would not think LENR is proven science. For example:
People with no general knowledge of science, such as most reporters or politicians, will have no way of judging the issue. You can't blame them, any more than you can blame me for not appreciating Italian Opera, given than I am practically tone deaf.
A person who has not read the experimental literature carefully, or not read enough of it.
A person such as Mary Yugo who does not understand the literature well enough to evaluate it. Many scientists in other fields make stupid mistakes when trying to evaluate cold fusion, as you see in the 2004 DoE review panel's remarks. I suppose that if you were to ask electrochemists to review a Tokamak experiment, they would also make stupid mistakes.
People who have no idea there is experimental literature. We know this is the problem because when it is resolved, the problem often goes away. Many skilled scientists who have no knowledge of the subject find out about it, read the literature, and are quickly convinced. So they tell me. That is why 4 million papers have been downloaded from LENR-CANR.org. Scientists would not download that many papers if they did not believe it. Only scientists can make head or tail of most of those papers, as I showed here on p. 6:
People who try to learn about cold fusion by reading Wikipedia or the Scientific American instead of reading the literature will fail. I wouldn't call that being a pathological skeptic, but there is no valid information about cold fusion in these sources, so you cannot learn anything from them. You will get the impression it is wrong.
I would not classify the authors at Wikipedia or the Scientific American as pathological scientists. I have had extensive exchanges with them. I am quite familiar with their views and their knowledge. They know nothing about cold fusion. They have read nothing. They do not know what instruments have been used, what has been observed, or what conclusions drawn from this. Their views come from an echo chamber of overblown imagination, fantasy and nonsense. If I believed this nonsense, I too would be convinced that cold fusion does not exist. I am sure there are many subjects about which I am severely misinformed, but I don't know this because I have never bothered to learn much about them. I took for granted what I read in the newspapers or Scientific American, which in these cases is bosh. (The world is awash in bosh. Centuries from now, people will look back on us and say we were only a little more educated than people were in 1600.) But here is the thing: I would never write an article in the Sci. Am. or on Wikipedia about a subject I have not carefully studied. I would not plunge into Wikipedia and delete statements by people I violently disagree with about a subject I know practically nothing about. That is pathological. Being ignorant is not.
There are a small number people who actually know about the subject, and who realize it is real, but who make statements as if they were pathological skeptics. I mean, for example, the scientists who attacked it in public while sending detailed applications for funding to EPRI and other organizations to perform cold fusion experiments. Their applications revealed that they understood the topic. They were lying in public. I guess they did that to undercut the competition and grab funding.
Finally, there are some pathological skeptics. This is true of any field of science.