The thing I find most interesting about this is that I think people's responses here are being driven in significant part by what was refuted. In particular the

The thing I find most interesting about this is that I think people's responses here are being driven in significant part by what was refuted. In particular the bad science was, as is frequently the case, on a political topic and one that I think affirmed the biases of many. In this very thread you can already see people literally arguing that the study that refuted it "was just a data point" which is a direct attempt to try to ignore the far more substantial data provided by the replication effort in showing that the original study was unsupported. Imagine if the paper that was refuted was one that claimed to show that e.g. humans were not playing as significant a role in global warming as thought. And then Science refused to publish a study that seemed to show conclusively that the original study was, at best, deeply flawed. Would people be responding in the same way?