Is that really true? I find it unlikely given that is was the Royal Society which published it. It's not as if it was published in "Astounding Science Fiction".
The paper was just published. Nobody has had time to challenge it yet.
Dear Larry, I am pointing out that even a peer reviewed article *concerning* peer reviewed articles can contain erroneous data and conclusions.
One study, especially one which so strongly refutes practical experience, intuition, and previous research and which covers such a limited time frame, cannot be allowed to stand on its own. (Or two or three, in the case of clones and Korean nationalist interests).
Wait a month or so, watch for corrections, as in the case of the Oreskes article and the buzz in the appropriate professional circles.
Peer review involves more than just having some others read your article. It means that others try the same experiment and see if they get similar results.
These guys are saying, “No need to bother with all that. Our research as settled all that, and there’s no need for anyone else to test anything.”
These guys are the only ones who are getting these results. That’s not science.