> The claims are unsupported and unscientific, and they demonstrate the danger of wild assertions made by non-experts reaching and misleading the masses. What

> The claims are unsupported and unscientific, and they demonstrate the danger of wild assertions made by non-experts reaching and misleading the masses. What damages? You just thoroughly criticized their claim, on a major newspaper no less. The reddit thread is already tagged as "Editorialized & Misleading blogspam." Meanwhile, the earth spins as usual, scientists keep working, and life goes on. In a week or two, nobody will even remember this debate. At worst, some people who are already prone to believe anything they read on the web may have acquired another incorrect belief. At best, people like me have learned a few more things about our wonderful planet thanks to this incident. > Such information viewed through the lens of a non-specialist may come across as both credible and alarming but damages the reputation of the science when ultimately shown to be flawed. The reputation and credibility of science comes precisely from the fact that it consists of an exchange of bold conjectures and ruthless refutations, all carried out in front of many watchful eyes, both scientists and laypeople. Thanks to you, we just witnessed such a public refutation. More cycles of this exchange, with more time and more data, will ultimately determine who is right. Why would this display of science-working-as-intended (regardless of who turns out to be right) damage the credibility of science, except in the eyes of those who already hold nothing but contempt for science, or those who want to use science as a blunt-force weapon in their petty political games? You don't get closer to the truth by trying to shut up people whom you disagree with. We, collectively, get closer to the truth by finding and presenting better evidence than one another. Now who's the alarmist?