The general thrust of "enough is enough" type of argument is who would you trust a sceptic or an expert.
Nobel prize winner Sir Paul Nurse tackled British sceptic journalist James Delingpole who I don't know from a bar of soap but would appear to be an angry Alan Jones! or Andrew Bolt! (if it's possible to imagine anything more angry than either of these commentators).
He is described on The Telegraph website as a "a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything".
I guess that says it all.
Now the scientists are hitting back saying that while everyone has an opinion, not all opinions are equal.
Nurse put to Delingpole a simple scenario to challenge his view that scientists were apparently not being scientific when they looked for consensus
a hypothetical question: if a dear relative was suffering from a fatal disease, would he opt for the "consensus" treatment recommended by doctors, or advice to drink more orange juice offered by a fringe maverick quack?