An interesting point. I agree, except that they may easily all make the same interpretative mistakes.
The methods of interpretation for these experiments were perfected in 1841 by J. P. Joule for isoperibolic and adiabatic calorimeters. Joule could have detected most cold fusion excess heat with ease. The methods for flow and Seebeck calorimeters were perfected around 1900. There methods are used hundreds of thousands of times a day by HVAC engineers, people operating factory equipment, and others. They are essential to our civilization. If these methods could fail because of interpretative mistakes, factories would routinely explode. They do, in fact, explode on rare occasions when a person makes a mistake in calorimetry, or when instruments fail and a thermometer reports the wrong temperature.
There is absolutely no way 92 professors could make mistakes for 20 years using techniques that have been used worldwide for 180 years.
It is a fact that a few researchers made interpretive mistakes in a few experiments, such as the NHE experiment I described above. I am not suggesting that no professor ever made a mistake. The NHE mistake was inept, but not blatant. The lower bound heat coefficient method they used is more difficult than the techniques used in most experiments. In contrast, the flow calorimeter technique is dead simple. There is no way you could interpret it wrong. That is why it is used in factories and HVAC everywhere. A few mechanical problems with it can occur, which is why factory boilers occasionally explode. There are 100% reliable methods of double checking to be sure the flow calorimeter equipment is working. McKubre and everyone else who used flow calorimeters employed these methods. All factory boiler operators are supposed to use them. As I said, that is why modern factory boilers seldom explode.