Re trusting the scientists. The issue is how many scientists have such anomalous reports out of what overall sample size? If only 1% of scientists make such reports then it is plausibly just because they are less experienced and/or mistaken. And, yes, scientists like people everywhere can end up repeating mistakes.
Unlike you, when I make a mistake, I admit it frankly and I correct it. I do not go on claiming that steam from 100 W boiling can push up macroscopic drops of water, or that I have discovered errors in papers when I have not.
The trouble with me, from your POV, is that I admit to much more uncertainty about the world (including other people's claims) than you do.
One difference between us is that your assumption is no discovered error => almost certain true. I do not make that assumption and am skeptical about many things where I've not discovered errors.
TH, this argument of error has been re-packaged every so often over three decades, that there is sensitivity to it.
Overall, statistically, LENR effects are without doubt observed over and over again. Not all measurements have the same precision; experiments have been "boutique", and not mass-labbed as a real program would do.
Nevertheless, the Error Torch has been carried by many, for instance, by David Kidwell of the NRL who would not yield to accept the reality of experiments twice confirmed elsewhere because of his claims of error. You can see him as the Keynote speaker at ICCF-18 on Youtube.
The goal is to find a solution to this intractable scientific question and develop a much-needed technology. You must be specific if you have claims of error, because most of these OG scientists have spent their careers answering every possible critique already, and specifics are out there.
Thought I’d better clear that up just in case...
