> 'They were surprised at the data they were
> finding' ... because ??
> It didn't fit their model, not just because it was
> the first time they'd seen this type of data. The
> denial is inherent in the amount of time it took
> them to realize what they'd discovered, wrap their
> heads around it and were able to report on it.
> Kathrin says it all in your quote.
> > “The first time we really saw it I think we
> > went a little bit into denial because ...
> > was not among the molecules suspected in a
> > cometary coma,” Altwegg said. “All models
> > that molecular oxygen will react with the
> > and will no longer be present.”
> Maybe they aren't the only ones in denial?
> What might the response to considerably higher
> than expected temperatures within the jets be?
> More surprise and denial because it's the first
> time they see this data (in situ) or because it
> doesn't fit their model?
Again, I don't see what your problem is. They've made new discoveries which are different to what they expected - so what? They have to clean the slate and start again with a new model. And they'll do that with enthusiasm.
That's how science progresses.
This process is only baffling to pseudo-scientists who cling rigidly to dogmatic theories, and refuse to budge when challenged. This image says it all: