All scientific theories are held tentatively pending the presentation of falsifying data or observation. That isn't unique to Cosmology; it's true of all of science, since scientific theories can never be proven true, only disproved if they are wrong. That's how science works.
while the original statement "we don't know jack squat about the universe" still stands as fact.
No; it's an unsupported assertion contradicted by the question posed in #62, which you have not answered:
"If our knowledge of the Universe is so paltry, how is that the angular power spectrum predictions [of the] Lamda-CDM model fit the actual measured data so well?"
The very link you provided has several "corrections" made by scientists on previous "knowledge":
New Age for the Universe
Perhaps you should read more carefully:
But the production ratio is poorly known from nuclear physics models, so Dauphas (2005, Nature, 435, 1203) combines the Solar System 238U:232Th ratio with the ratio observed in very old, metal poor stars to solve simultaneous equations for both the production ratio and the age of the Universe, obtaining 14.5+2.8-2.2 Gyr.
The knowledgeable reader will note that the resulting Age estimate, "14.5+2.8-2.2 Gyr." STRADDLES the previously accepted value (derived by other methods)! IOW, this result in no way contradicts the previously accepted value -- it is completely consistent with it, and since it represents a new method of doing the age estimate, it provides additional confirmation of the previously accepted age estimate! When Wright wrote "New Age for Universe" he didn't mean that it contradicted the accepted value, he meant it was a new Estimate, based on a new method!
This could be a case where the effects of good Italian wine overwhelmed the scientific super-ego of Kolb et al.
Perhaps you should try readying that again:
Cosmic Ripples instead of Dark Energy? 16 Mar 2005 - Rocky Kolb et al. have suggested that large scale ripples in space-time could explain the observations of the accelerating Universe that seem to require dark energy - the vacuum energy density that is equivalent to the cosmological constant. Despite issuing press releases and getting some coverage, even in the Los Angeles Times although 10 days later, I find the Kolb et al. arguments lacking. In Einstein's General Relativity, the local metric determines the local stress-energy tensor, so the large scale ripples do not change the need for a negative pressure and hence a vacuum energy density or cosmological constant based on the supernova observations of the local geometry of space-time. Here local means within about 10 billion light years (!) but we can easily observe a region this large. Hirata & Seljak also disagree with Kolb et al., as do Geshnizjani, Chung & Afshordi and Flanagan. This could be a case where the effects of good Italian wine overwhelmed the scientific super-ego of Kolb et al.
For those who have problems with reading comprehension, what Ned Wright is saying is that Kolb, et al, who have proposed an alternative explanation that does NOT require dark energy (a feature of the currently embraced Lamda-CDM model), are all wet. IOW, Wright is dismissing the challenge to the prevailing explanation for the the large scale structure and dynamics of the Universe. The prevailing paradigm remains intact; the challengers are the ones who were sent packing by Wright.
And even if Kolb, et al, were correct, it does not logically follow that "we don't know jack about the universe." Whether or not Kolb, et al are right, the predictions of the angular power spectrum, the existence of the CMBR spectrum matching the black-body curve, elemental abundance predictions, and a bevy of other potentially falsifying predictions about the Universe have been borne out by observation. If we "don't know jack about the Universe" how is that extraordinary accomplishment possible?
I would not be so bold as to equate taking a few radiation measurments with unlocking the mystery of the universe. From everything I've read there is still quite a debate about the origins of the universe. Even if the supposed "origin" is pinpointed one can always ask the questions "what came before that?" or "what created the origin?"