Often scientists with simulation models are followers rather than leaders of scientific explanations. Without knowing the assumptions and limitations of the model, I have no idea whether these simulations are temporarily self serving (matching current rather biased data collection). As an expert on simulation, I find the information provided way to limited to draw any kind of conclusions. I am a believer in simulation as a tool, but when modeling the unknown missing some slight factor can radically alter the results. Simulation is usually better at modeling something already well defined than exploring totally new vistas.

In any event, with 200 to 400 BILLION stars in the milky way alone, I always want a definition of "rarity." Even 1 in a 1000 (which is rare in most vernaculars) would yield 200 to 400 MILLION systems in our galaxy alone. Since we have already found (from memory at least 1 circular orbit system in our nascent search beginnings), it implies there are millions and millions (at a minimum) of systems like our own in our own galaxy.

Within 10 years, we will have a much better idea of the ranges, types, and qualities of extra-solar systems. I find it sort of ridiculous to speculate (especially with some kind of agenda) when all we have to do is look. I have a feeling there will be many surprises in this story. Especially interesting to me will be if we can figure out habitability of low mass (dim) stars extra-solar systems, some of which may be extremely close and up to now hidden. After we have increased our data collection a thousand fold and are able to remove many of the current instrument detection biases, then will be a time to build much more reliable simulation models.