Final answer:
The study by Lim H. W. et al. (2002) published in PNAS and the multiple working hypotheses approach mentioned by Lukacs et al. (2007) could potentially support Barton et al.'s 2002 study. It would be necessary to review Barton et al.'s work directly to determine relevant hypotheses or findings for specific support.
Step-by-step explanation:
A reference that could support Barton et al.'s 2002 study is the work of Lim H. W., G., M. Wortis, and R. Mukhopadhyay, which is published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2002. In their research, these authors provide scientific insights that might align with the findings or methodologies of Barton et al. (2002), thus serving as a supporting reference for their study. To further clarify which specific H or hypothesis could support Barton et al.'s study, it would be necessary to review Barton et al.'s work directly and determine the relevant hypotheses or research findings.
The usage of multiple working hypotheses (MWH) is another approach that could potentially support the study. MWH is noted for its ability to recognize and explicitly consider uncertainty in underlying models, which contrasts with the more traditional Null Hypothesis Testing (NHT). This method is discussed in Elliott and Brook (2007) and supported by Lukacs et al. (2007), who express concerns about the sole reliance on NHT.
Lastly, it is essential to note that hypothesis testing and supporting evidence can be very specific to the topic and findings of a study. So without the details of Barton et al.'s findings, it is challenging to precisely identify which specific hypotheses or evidence can support their research conclusively.