My contention is that the scientists are true professionals, not laymen. Which means they are aware of, and have considered, any and all arguments which laymen can raise.
Early in the dispute about the role of man's activity in global warming I tried to follow the technical arguments...and couldn't. Not necessarily because I was not capable of mastering the science (although that's a distinct possibility) but because doing so would consume far more time and effort than a I cared to dispose of.
So I'm reduced to following the arguments in laymens' terms...and I tend to feel most others are too...or should be if they had any sense.
The world has no shortage of professional bunkum.
My professional field is very much less subjective than global climate modeling, but the discipline falls into many esoteric branches. Most people expect a professional in my field to know EVERYTHING about the field just because he/she is a practitioner. This is a patently untrue assumption.
Knowing this, I'm skeptical of bozos like this Randerson pompously announcing that I've got to pay attention to HIS "experts", 'cause "they've got a degree and stuff".
Big freaking deal.
These guys are truly like unto Gods! They must already know why the temperature was so warm in 1000 AD, and why it just doesn't matter. I sure hope they get round to telling us.