[Mamzelle]

But you *can* reproduce a study in astronomy, geo, climatology...and you can speak confidently about the results of those studies. But the conclusions that are drawn bear little relationship to what the studies can demonstrate. There are only murky clues and plausible theories, to be shot down by the next murky clue or slightly more plausible theory. All you're left with, really, is the faith these scientists have in themselves--and knowing the egos and corruptibility of scientists, I'll pick a better faith. These erstwhile scientists write as if working with far better evidence than they actually have--as if from the kind of experimental data that a pharmacologist works from.

[Aric2000]

What they are doing here is putting out a scientific hypothesis, their study has drawn them to this possible conclusion.

They have put their hypothesis out into the public light in order to be peer reviewed.

This hypothesis is NOT set in stone, but they will catch the interest of other scientists who will try to falsify it, or the other scientists will come to the same conclusion, and verify the findings.

It is fun to discuss these different hypothesis, but do not mistake those of us who discuss it as adherents to this particular hypothesis, it is fascinating to discuss the implications and what they might mean.

I think that you are making the mistake of assuming that since it is out there for public consumption that these scientists are somehow claiming that it is fact, when in fact, they are not.