I have always found the BANDit papers highly reminiscent to creationist writings. Omitting recent research because it totally invalidates their points is a classic method used by both groups.
Let me quibble with that "because". In my Internet experience, the Unmentionables routinely omit recent research ("recent" often meaning "everything from the last few decades, and almost everything from the last several decades") because they have no clue it has ever been done -- they don't even get the idea that it _might_ ever have been done. Genuine ignorance in concert with intellectual laziness must not be underestimated.
From reading things like Feduccia's 1996 book (ninety-six, not seventy- and not even eighty-), which blithely states as a matter of fact that hadrosaurs were aquatic (and therefore had much better preservation potential than tyrannosaurs, making the predator-prey ratios useless), I get the strong impression that the same is true of BANDits as well. They are not interested in anything but birds, so they don't know anything about anything but birds.
The big fat difference is that the BANDits are professional scientists. We must expect them to know better, and I _mean_ "must". When I got the degree of Master, and again when I got the degree of Doctor, I had to _sign an oath_ stating (among other things) that I will keep my knowledge of my fields of research up to date and that I will form my opinions on scientific matters _in general_ based on the best of my knowledge and conscience. That was a prerequisite for my degrees becoming legally binding.
So far, I'm not calling for anyone's degree to be revoked.* Let's blame the peer reviewers instead: when they (as it strongly appears) failed to insist that Lingham-Soliar read and cite Li et al. (2010), they failed at their (unpaid) job.
* AFAIK, revoking a degree is generally considered next to unthinkable in the USA. Over here, it does happen when severe breaches of the mentioned oath occur.