You are willfully taking more away from that than was stated. Such a fallacy is a favorite trope among science denialists, and those who would distort the objectivity of research for misinformed (and/or dishonest) ends. I don’t know what, if any, specific motivations you have, but I think it’s worth pointing out.
Their point was, there are other confounding variables, and therefore the parent comment doesn't negate the grandparent comment. I agree, and I am absolutely not a science denialist.
What do you mean? The commenter just pointed out (in a joking manner) that, even if some confounding factors were taken into account, the result might still be caused by other confounding factors. That's a serious critique, not a fallacy.
The scientific method explicitly requires peer-review and feedback, in part because methodological flaws may have been overlooked by those who designed and/or performed the original study.
Ad-hominem attacks against a person offering good-faith methodological criticism (such as calling them a "science denialist", or accusing them of being "misinformed" and/or "dishonest") is behavior that seeks to defend the results of a study more strongly than it seeks to discover the truth.
If you have a critique of my methodological criticism itself, by all means, please share it, but the entire scientific community would be better off if we could do away with this kind of emotionally-charged quasi-religious dogma that seeks to suppress legitimate scientific concerns through social ostracism.
---------------
Compare and contrast the above with what follows:
---------------
Your post reminds me of the reaction of the Catholic Church to Copernicus's assertions of a heliocentric solar system.
---------------
Notice how sticking to objective, unemotional, and impersonal language in the first section is more conducive to earnest scientific inquiry than the personal attack in the second section?
