Nobody moo'd at you, nobody said you had to agree with anybody else.
You however have NOT considered expert opinion. You declared something bad science despite many expert scientists defending it. You didn't offer any supporting evidence for why your view should be more valid than their expert opinion, you didn't offer any data to debunk the grounds for their defence.
You just ignored them - and then you claim to "consider" their views. You haven't ACTUALLY considered ANYTHING unless you have look at the supporting arguments and evidence and considered counter arguments and evidence and had the expertise t(whether by yourself or acquired through another expert) to actually compare which set of evidence is more accurate or valid.
That's exactly the fallacy that drives the climate-change denial movement. Somebody makes a convincing sounding argument, presents what he thinks is evidence and people are fooled by it because they don't go the next step to see how that supposed evidence have held up to scrutiny - which would quickly show that it's all been thoroughly debunked by numerous independent studies.
Scepticism does not elevate one above expertise, and citing expertise is NOT an appeal to authority fallacy.