I don’t agree. Political, overconfident language is not scientifically appropriate, especially for a paper purporting to overturn the scientific consensus. Sou

I don’t agree. Political, overconfident language is not scientifically appropriate, especially for a paper purporting to overturn the scientific consensus. Sounds like this is language that was in there before peer review but that was removed before publication. Makes sense that part didn’t pass peer review as it’s improper to make such overconfident conclusions and claims in a scientific paper.