If you are not a scientist and you disagree with scientists about science, it's actually not a disagreement. You're just wrong.

While I wholeheartedly disagree that this statement has any validity whatsoever, what about if you ARE a scientist and you disagree with scientists? Do you then measure how many exist on each side and then say "majority rules"? Is that how science works? No, that is how politics works (or rather, why it doesn't work). Science can't work like that. It is the very antithesis of science.

People have no idea what "science" is, even many scientists. This is because they have all been taught science by people who don't know what science is. This is because the Rockefeller's et al have funded all scientific endeavors for over a century. They have controlled all scientific information and more importantly, the curricula of all science programs and schools for all of that time.

Scientists are mostly clueless about science. Not all of them, but most. Based on the average understanding of what science is among scientists, and the very fact that the founding principle of science is to prove itself to be wrong (and it pretty much always succeeds, even if only by degrees), it would be completely idiotic to not disagree with scientists, no matter who you are, assuming you have an actual argument to present.

We should listen to scientists. We should listen to all arguments. Debate is how science works. If science can't stand up to debate, no matter what letters the debater has or doesn't have after their name, then it's not science, it's Religion.