Well sure, the methodology is touched upon, but not terribly thoroughly (perhaps there is a link to their actual calculations in there). But, that methodology

Well sure, the methodology is touched upon, but not terribly thoroughly (perhaps there is a link to their actual calculations in there). But, that methodology rests upon other methodologies in other studies. I mean, not that that's inappropriate, this is simply the complex nature of scientific studies. But on any kind of topic like this, I get a constant impression from comments that "the science" is right there for the reading, no gaps or uncertainty exist whatsoever. Are people literally saying exactly that? Well ya, a lot of the time they are literally saying that. But even if not, this is what is usually being implied, and it's certainly the impression readers are walking away with. In my experience, it's a rare person who can unemotionally acknowledge the fact that much of what we loosely refer to as "the truth" is actually just a big messy collection of approximations, if not outright imaginations in many cases.