http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/ephraim.shtml
A preprint:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283
Why do publications refuse to post links to (or at least citations of) the original scientific articles? I mean, these links are the result of five minutes of googling; which means the reporter communicated with the authors themselves but didn't bother to ask for a hyperlink or an emailed citation.
The mind boggles.
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/files/EarthSun.pdf
(Another 30 seconds of googling.)
I don't mind that journalists don't publish your "30 seconds of Googling". Doing so would suggest that top Google hits are fact.
It uses an extremely suspicious technique to test the significance of their finding. I doubt this paper will pass review without substantial changes.
edit: The one you posted is 2 years old, but tries to explain the same effect with a different cause.
It's immediately suspicious that the authors introduce a new type of "test" for whatever spectra are being measured. When that happens, the authors need to rigorously demonstrate its validity. That is not present in this preprint.
The thing that needs to be demonstrated is that their method generates a reasonable space of outcomes. It's not clear to me that's true for their method.
Here are my three best guesses:
1. The reporters think their readers are idiots who aren't capable of understanding anything beyond what the reporters spoonfeed them.
2. The reporters want to reduce the chances that they will be caught in whatever mistakes they make.
3. Adequate citations in the pre-WWW world looked intimidating to the uninitiated.