David Mackay has already destroyed his reputation as a scientist by first leaping to a conclusion and then struggling with every effort to prove his hypothesis, rather than the standard scientific method of trying to DISprove the hypothesis.

You'll probably correct me on this, but as I understand it: he presnted his hypothesis and supporting evidence. His critics responded by providing alternative hypothesis to explain his evidence. He has in turn responded by showing that the alternative hypothesis do not match the evidence on more detailed examination. Is that not the standard scientific method of presenting a hypothesis for criticism and disproof, and then responding to the criticism and disproof given?

Sorry to belabour the point but I've been on stage to present findings and hypothesis- the idea that some people think it's acceptable behavoir to laugh a man off the stage gives me a strong knee jerk reaction to take his side. Whatever he was presenting to them- what asses!