people who are not trained in Science (Climate Modeling in particular, Physics in general) are not qualified to speak on the topic. Their opinions count for not

people who are not trained in Science (Climate Modeling in particular, Physics in general) are not qualified to speak on the topic. Their opinions count for nothing because those are based on emotion, misinformation, ideology, or plain dogma. How do we define "trained"? Since the subject in question is the consequences of global warming (not whether warming is occurring), why does training in Physics qualify one to pontificate on what is largely a biology question? Also, you seem to define scientists in a way that suggests that they're not subject to emotion, misinformation, ideology, or plain dogma. Sadly, this is not the case.