I do not misunderstand it. You forgot what you wrote.
You did not write if. You wrote is
This statement was not conditional.
"CCSH is a better fit to the known calorimetric facts in these experiments (excess proportional to heat in when effect is present)."
As for CCS , the socalled skeptic neutral THHuxley blindly quotes it without evening knowing what it is.
There is zero experimental evidence for CCS after 17 years.
Kirk Shanahan coined the acronym (conditional calibration shift or something - I forget). But the idea, as I understand it, is simple. deltaT in calorimetry is related to power by a calibration curve experimentally derived from the tested system, or rather from a similar control, under conditions where power in is known."
Robert: that was my judgement, for the reasons I have stated previously and restated in my reply to you. You took that to mean some additional experimental evidence was needed to make that judgement, whereas that was not my point at all.
I agree, Shanahan made a big deal of his acronym when in reality it is just noting that when you have a large power in / excess power ratio, errors in calibration caused by change in cell conditions, amplified by this ratio, are particularly problematic. However, he also hypothesised a mechanism for such a change in conditions that would apply specifically to many but not all F&P style electrolysis experiments, and not much else (ATER).
As for "so called skeptic neutral THH blindly quotes it without knowing what it is" that is untrue, and I'd prefer you not to state untrue things about me, also I'd prefer that you don't personalise this debate.
Commenting on "neutrality" here is not helpful because where there are different views it is easy to see a contrary view as not neutral. Personally I think having any judgement on this matter is non-neutral - and suspending judgement is not sensible and for example if carried out uniformly would need to suspensions of judgement on many other things that are contentious but where judgement is valuable. However I attempt to explain and make transparent any non-neutrality I have by giving reasons for my judgements which others can agree or disagree with.
As a skeptic I tend to want a higher standard of evidence to state anything definitely. Saying something is a "better fit to evidence" is a judgement and since it must be better, worse, or the same is not something I need to be skeptical about. I don't see skepticism as having no views. However a skeptical frame of mind tends to make me less ready to leap to something new.
While I don't have any comment on your neutrality re these matters, I think on the basis of your recent posts that you are non-neutral on the topic of my contribution here: and personalise this.