Alex said:

"unfortunately, most scientists who adhere to the scientific method do not. I agree with Nick that McKay et al. rushed out (along with the journal Science and a PR-hungry NASA) with a half-baked theory that has been pummelled by a large number of (rightly) skeptical scientists in the Mars community."

I most assuredly disagree with your conclusion that they rushed to publication (the strongest phrasing I allow myself in online discussions.)
Reading over the paper itself you note it is strongly reasoned and highly qualified - they don't assert it proves life in ALH84001; they suggest life as the most reasonable explanation taking all the evidence together:

Search for Past Life on Mars:
Possible Relic Biogenic Activity in Martian Meteorite ALH84001.
http://www-curator.jsc.nasa.gov/curator/antmet/marsmets/SearchForLife/SearchForLife.htm

Everyone has their own basis on which they form their judgments. For me among the research that followed Mckay et.al., what I find most compelling is the fact that the carbonates and magnetites in ALH84001 formed at low temperatures.
The new report of Scott and Barber does not provide a legitimate formation mechanism unless and until they can show that it can satisfy the paleomagnetic and isotopic data that separately and independently argue against it:

Low-temperature Origin of Carbonates Consistent with Life in ALH84001.
http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/May97/LowTempCarb.html

What I also find interesting is the other inorganic attempts to create the carbonates and magnetites seen in ALH84001 all require hydrothermal processes. On Earth hydrothermal systems such as in Yellowstone are virtually overflowing with extremophilic life and you would be hard pressed to find any precipitated minerals that are NOT biologically mediated.
I'm therefore suspicious of the claims that these proposed inorganic mechanisms really do not involve life.

Now I should tell you my opinion on ALH84001 is not completely in favor of the Mars life hypothesis. Again, what I find most compelling *against* the Mars life idea is the research that it is very hard to protect meteorites from contamination, both in the wild and in storage. Especially jarring are the reports that meteorites thought to be stored in sterile containers had bacterial or fungal infestations when removed from storage.
Note though this means, at least to me, the biological signatures seen by Mckay et.al. in ALH84001 and other meteorites would really be due to life, but in fact Earth-life.
However, IF this is the case, it would mean the arguments for life in the Mckay et.al. paper were correct it's just that they did not adequately discount the possibility of contamination.

Bob Clark