Perhaps you are forgetting that the fact that cold fusion is difficult to replicate has no scientific significance. It is not relevant to whether the effect is real or not. There is no rule that something difficult to replicate might not be real. Many other experiments are much harder to replicate, with lower s/n ratios, but everyone believes them. The top quark is an example. If scientists would evaluate cold fusion strictly on the merits of the experiments -- s/n ratios, replications and so on -- while ignoring irrelevant issues such as the fact that it is difficult to replicate, they would all believe it is real.
Did I say something that prompted this comment? I am not forgetting the fact that difficulty in replication is not relevant to whether the effect is real or not. I agree with that statement. What it has to do with anything
I actually said is beyond me.
Pretty much your entire comment deals with the unfair treatment of CF researchers and the topic in general. I am not arguing otherwise. I also have never played any role in it. So why are you arguing with me about it? The real question - at least the one that interests me - is what should/can be done about it? People like me who are here for the most part to rubberneck at the Rossi trainwreck have no role whatsoever to play in the fate of cold fusion.