Sure, if the root post analyzed the study, or even did the most cursory skim of it, and pointed out how the article differed from its conclusions, that would be valuable.

They didn't. They blanket dismissed it, gave their own theory, and expressed how tired they are from this cross they must bear.

https://www.unitgraphics.com/deox/IUCNDeoxreportBOOK15-11-20... (77MB)

There's the actual study. The BBC article is pretty accurate in its summary.

The article title is even not accurate with the contents. Why must the GP dig any deeper?

Because they dismiss the whole article because of the title and then try to dismiss the article with irrelevant topics.

> While I agree with you, it's not unreasonable to try to correct for expected press sensationalism.

I don't see why a random internet commentator's pet theory (with nothing in the article to support it) should be treated as necessarily better.

Neither do I. That’s why I didn’t suggest that.