"This field lacks a clearly and fully specified written protocol to reproduce even semi-reliably any aspect of our claims for cold fusion or condensed matter nuclear effects of any sort."
My hat is off to McKubre, for once. That is exactly what I and many skeptics have been claiming albeit less eloquently, for at least eight years now, since Rossi raised his ugly head in 2011.
Whereas I completely disagree with McKubre. I think the protocols published by Storms and Cravens are complete, and they work. Storms himself said the paper is out of date. I take that to mean it wasn't the last word on the subject, but that does not mean it does not work. I said that to McKubre today. He said that no one has done the Storms protocol so we cannot say whether it works or not. I said if true, that is not Storms' fault, and furthermore Fleischmann said that is the protocol he follows -- meaning yes, someone has done it. McKubre and I disagree about this, and that's where we left it.
"That is exactly what I and many skeptics have been claiming . . ." You have no basis for claiming that. McKubre thinks he does, and unlike you, he has read the literature, but in my opinion he is wrong. Since you know nothing and you refuse to read anything, you have no basis for your opinion. If you happen to be right is merely a lucky guess. Anyone who blindly predicts failure and mistakes will be common in research will be right most of the time. This is like predicting that 13 out 14 horses in a race will lose.