Any credentialed scientist who thinks like that should be drummed out of the profession. And that is most certainly NOT what I am talking about. The vast majority of the work on LENR has been done by well-qualified researchers at mainstream organizations or who have emerged FROM mainstream organizations.
That the work has been forced to operate on a shoestring is due to political manipulation of the science review process both in government and academia to shut down any and all funding and research. Said manipulators have even interfered in industry funding.
"Then, when you add in vocal (but not necessarily erudite) non-professional "champions of the underdog", who belittle critics -- credibility of the subject takes off in a handbasket."
The pathological skeptics have been criticized by fully qualified professionals in addition to "non-professional "champions of the underdog"".
I suggest again that you read Beaudette's book. He is certainly a "well-qualified professional". So was Eugene Mallove. So was Julian Schwinger. So is Brian Josephson.
However, I note that the index to Beaudette's book does not even have an entry for the eminent LENR 'researcher', "Rossi"...
~~~~~~~~
As you probably know, even we "heavy hitters" mostly did our earliest research in makeshift fashion. However, those of us who went on to become "credentialed professionals" soon learned that sloppy setups are detrimental to both accuracy and repeatability (not to mention safety).
Even the simple and inexpensive expedient of fastening all components down to a common plywood substrate and immobilizing and minimizing wiring and tubing connections considerably improves reliability of results (and experimenter safety).
Researchers who habitually ignore such simple discipline merely display disregard for quality results and self-label themselves as unprofessional "hacks"... The rest of us learned better lab practice.
Note that I said, "SELF-label"...