It is open to some (e.g. you and many here) to argue that the balance between increased replicability and effort spent to make replicable, for LENR, shows that there is some new physics effect.
***There is no need to spend more on "replicable" LENR, it has been repliCATED 153 times in peer reviewed journals. The trick is to get rid of any and all references to the word "Nuclear" and to just call it a superduper resonating chemical effect that can generate heat without CO2 generation, or something like that.
For me it is the other way round because
***because you like to move the goal posts.
there have been so many apparent positives that on further study prove negative,
***Really? Out of those 153 peer reviewed replications of the PFAHE, how many "apparent positives on further study proved negative"? You throw that out so glibly that it shouldn't take more than 30 seconds for you to come up with an answer.
or unreproducible even in a stochastic fashion (which is the same). High quality experiments show results less convincing than low quality ones: demonstrating that many of these results are indeed experimental error. And so on.
***TLDR humpty dumpty moving-the-stochastic-goalposts argumentation. It's just hyperskepticism.
That overall situation is what makes me highly pessimistic about LENR, though still interested since there remain unexplained anomalies
***For EVERYONE's sake, please start a new thread and post what those "remaining unexplained anomalies" are. Those would be FACTS that both sides agree on, something you and I have gone over and over about on several occasions.
and those, if replicable now,
***Why not start with the ones that were repliCATED THEN, rather than now?
are always worth attention. That is why I look at the well reported experimental results with great interest but also a skeptical frame of mind.
***I sincerely doubt that you look at those 153 peer reviewed replications as "well reported experimental results".