I constantly see people using this Freshman level objection to scientific information. If you cite experts and refuse to address some internet jocky's pet [crackpot] "theory", it's an appeal to authority!!! And that is assumed to be an illegitimate argument. Firstly, an appeal to authority is better than an appeal to ignorance. And that 's what people often want! They think some 10-minute internet expert, or some guy on YouTube, can hold a candle to a true expert. And this isn't JUST about some debate anyone can have. Complex scientific issues require many years of study; often in excess of 12 years of formal college studies to truly gain expertise. These are not subjects that one can discuss intelligently after doing a bit of reading on the internet. You can't just read about climate change and that makes you a climate expert. You can't read a few articles about Covid and claim expertise as an immunologist. And you are certainly in no position to second-guess real scientists. And most importantly, what this means is unless you are an expert in the field of study applicable, you likely don't even know what questions to ask. There is a reason people have to do 4 or 8 years of POST DOCTORAL STUDIES [continued studies after getting a Ph.D]. If you don't have a Ph.D. or can claim legitimate expertise in a scientific subject, then you are best qualified to read what the experts say in a consensus opinion, and IGNORE EVERYONE ELSE. This notion that anyone and everyone can second-guess real scientists is partly why we have people taking horse deworming meds when we have actual vaccines.