You mentioned peer reviewed science that was "completely wrong". That appears to be a comment about a conclusion, rather than a methodology. My apologies if you meant to imply something different and I misunderstood your message. However, I am quite certain I am not epistemologically challenged. We are supposed to be on the same side here. I didn't personally attack you. I questioned your analysis. There is no need for personal insults.
You mentioned peer reviewed science that was "completely wrong". That appears to be a comment about a conclusion, rather than a methodology. My apologies if you meant to imply something different and I misunderstood your message. However, I am quite certain I am not epistemologically challenged. We are supposed to be on the same side here. I didn't personally attack you. I questioned your analysis. There is no need for personal insults.