It's perplexing how you seem to have no understanding as to why your qualifications matter in a debate where you are so adamant you are right. Lets give an example of a hypothetical situation to try to help you understand.
From what I know, you are pro-circ, right?
Now, I have no strong opinion on this matter at all so this is a completely hypothetical situation. I feel vax/anti-vac would be a better example but I am not sure where you stand on that.
But let's say you and I are debating circ with the same rigor we are debating climate change.
You are arguing pro-circ and providing all your 'evidence' as to why it is right and I am arguing anti and constantly telling you that your reasons are wrong, have no validity or scientific backing and insisting that I am right, telling you that the drs and science you feel are right are completely wrong and uneducated, only my opinion is educated. Would you not be curious or feel for the sake of the argument it's important to know why I feel so qualified to draw the conclusions that you and several prominant drs are wrong?