Well, you don't need a "study" to show this ... "Study finds scientific reproducibility does not equate to scientific truth" https://buff.ly/2LOvudK pic.twitter.com/M8mvt7orRk
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
I appreciate the background/context better now, thanks. All I can say is that I was not referring in any way to the paper or the model. I was referring to the title of the press release and the claim as stated there. I see how that could have been unclear
The numbers of times people (reviewers, etc.) have said of models' results "we all know this" and "this is obviously true" when nothing of the sort is neither a mainstream view nor published is very high — hilarious and painful.
It reminds me of how right wing people and especially fascists talk about modern art. Ridiculously painful rhetoric.
Yes, characterising modelled results as trivialities, obviousness, truisms... seems to be the pastime of many researchers. They seem to believe that intuition is a more reliable manner to elaborate scientific conclusions and that psychol. processes are simple linear operations.
The same reply to all the above: If you could have done it, why didn't you? 
We got desk rejected at two prestigious journals because we didn’t have *real* data indeed. I expect this happens all the time.
Agreed. I am constantly surprised the level of confidence people have on Twitter in tweeting about things even when they are not a modeller, I'm kind of envious tbh. I wish I had this level of confidence. And I'm studying it 
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.