Based purely on whether you think it's a good investment.  This is your own subjective assessment.  Your credentials lead people to expect a certain level of objectivity and dedication to the scientific method - i.e. the ability to embrace challenges to your own assumptions and the rapid and full acceptance of new data.  You have instead been very quick to jump to assumptions that would support negative conclusions and been persistently skeptical about things that your peers have long established to be prevailing analysis.

With respect you do seem to consistently demonstrate a rather profound bias.  That in itself would be fine if you were to declare it.  Instead you use "professional academic skepticism" as shield behind which you can conceal your instincts.

If you were as rigorous about objectivity as you are quick to jump to straw man arguments I think you'd find people treated your research as the purely academic work that you claim it to be and would, accordingly be a good deal more respectful and less personal in their rebuttals.

This is just my subjective opinion of course.