That’s because all you do is refer people to a huge list of crap. It’s not worth anyone’s time, since 99% of cold fusion is hype and scams (look at the garbage Kevmo has copy and pasted to this thread from an Ecat blog). The USPTO bans this nonsense for a valid reason. All you have to do is post some quality information with a short write up of why you think it’s quality and worth someone’s time.
The standard hot physics refrain, yet always made without examining the evidence.
The researchers I post review articles for are (or were, since many of them have retired) eminently qualified scientists. Storms had a successful career at Los Alamos National Labs, retired from there, and became a "hobby scientist" with his own lab. Hagelstein came out of Lawrence Livermore National Labs, and is now tenured faculty at MIT. Bockris is a scientist of impeccable credentials, with many hundreds of peer reviewed research articles, book authorships, and national and international science awards.
Add to that that I have followed up many of their referenced articles, and, based on forty years of experience, see that those articles follow the accepted rules of "good science". Having written similar articles myself and done "peer review" on other such articles, I think I know good science when I see it. The "hype and scams" you refer to do not exist. The SINGLE proven instance of fraud that exists in the field of cold fusion was perpetrated by the "hot physicists" at MIT.
Simply put, you are a liar, propagandist, intellectually dishonest, and lacking in science ethics. Although given other evidence, perhaps your ethical practices reflect the "new" science ethics practiced with such gusto by the "global warmers" ("scamming" the peer review process, denial of tenure, attempting to get researchers who don't agree with them fired). Unsurprisingly, the practitioners of this "new science ethics" are largely physicists.