My sense is that the skeptics overreacted in 1989 to some errors that were made and failed to give due consideration to some of the other evidence that had been presented, and that, since then, they have continued to speak against the LENR research with a confidence that is not justified by the evidentiary standards that the physical sciences impose on other types of claim that are made from time to time. I am neither an electrochemist nor a physicist—I work with software. But I am starting to be led by a purely formal analysis of their reasoning to the conclusion that they have been systematically talking past the important issues. In any other field of knowledge one would probably do well to defer to the experts. On this particular topic, however, one becomes quite reluctant to give committed critics among physicists (and they might be in the majority) much deference. For reasons that are unclear, they do not appear to have approached the matter with the attention, care and objectivity that it requires.
In the breach, an option that is available is to make a best effort at becoming acquainted with the details and reasoning of the experiments. It's not an approach that is assured to lead to greater clarity, but we can at least give it a try.