UPDATE 3/12/12 – a new study presents very strong evidence for the comet theory, see here

Bishop Hill alerts us to this news item in Miller-McCune, a policy and research website. It seems the scientific claims can’t be replicated by others…but wait for the kicker.

OK, having read that primer, it looks like a slam dunk for falsification, right?

Yet, the scientists who described the alleged impact in a hallowed U.S. scientific journal refuse to consider the critics’ evidence — insisting they are correct, even though no one can replicate their work: the hallmark of credibility in the scientific world.

…

“We are under a lot of duress,” said Kennett. “It has been quite painful.” So much so, that team members call their critics’ work “biased,” “nonsense” and “screwed up.”

…

“It is very peculiar,” Holliday said. “They propose an idea, a study contradicts it, then they criticize the scientists or the work.”

Hmm, where have we seen this sort of behavior before? Man o’ mann,  I wish I could remember where contradictory peer reviewed scientific replication was dismissed as “biased,” “nonsense” and “screwed up.”.

But it reminds me of what might go on in scientific circles above Monks restaurant:

The news item in Miller-McCune is highly recommended reading