I agree with Kirk. That is, I think his points have not been answered.
I agree with that too, and I expect Marwan et al. also agree. The problem is that Shanahan's arguments have no merit. They are not worth addressing, and there is no end to them. You answer A and he comes back with B, you answer that and he brings up C, in an infinite series.
I said earlier that academic scientists such as Levi et al. have an ethical obligation to address criticism from other scientists. I meant substantive criticism that several scientists consider legitimate and worth addressing. I mean criticism based on conventional laws that appears to have experimental support. I do not mean that McKubre and others are obligated to address a crackpot theory offered by one scientist, where the theory violates textbook laws and has no experimental support.
There has to be a balance between addressing legitimate concerns and getting lost in the hall of mirrors where the sound of hooves is never horses but always unicorns.
There is way too much crackpot theory in cold fusion.