Umm, there are plenty of highly qualified people in the science field who believe the opposite of you on this issue. Scientists disagree on stuff all the time, and both sides have equal qualifications.
What's true: scientists disagree all the time.
What's not true: both sides are equal.
When two lawyers argue their case in court, are these arguments created equal because both went to Harvard law? Or is it the
volume of evidence each can present?
What makes better scientific arguments stick is reputable, peer-reviewed journal publications, and with results that can be
replicated. The last part is super important. What typically drives consensus among experts is when research can be reproduced. Because there are so damn many publications and nobody can possibly read them all, there are actually teams devoted to doing what's called meta-analysis. These folks take all the relevant research to a specific topic and attempt to boil it down to the best conclusions (using math/stats) from all those papers. Those types of analysis then drive the information used to make changes in areas like medicine.
So what I'm saying is, equal qualifications don't mean equal weight should be given. You need to have those opinions hold up to rigor from other folks in the field and prove meaningful over subsequent studies.
When you see community consensus reached on big issues, like climate change, it usually means the
overwhelming amount of research is pointing one direction. You will always find dissenting opinions from people with tremendous credentials. But if those folks are in a minority, due to lack of replication or rigor, the notion of placing them on equal footing is dismissing one of the fundamentals of research - replication.