For all you know, and if IQ is a true measure, I may actually have a higher IQ than many of the scientists who do research and may be able to pick up their own cherry-picking of data on their papers.
The IQ is only part of it. The science, training and peer review is another part of it. There are too many smart engineers that think they know more than climate scientists because they picked up a bit of fluid dynamics along the way. Scientists rarely get the delusion that they can build a bridge, a high rise, a better electric motor or a car.
By your measure, we should just blindly accept whatever scientists throw at us just because their papers have been peer-reviewed, and that's not something I'm willing to accept, no matter who the source is.
No, you should just blindly accept what tens of thousands of scientists have produced over decades, which is peer reviewed research and publications. Because you're not a climate scientist, they are.
Honestly, this whole conversation is absurd. Do you attempt to review published papers on particle physics, genetics, chemistry and geology without any basis in study? Then why do you think you can overturn climate scientists' work and not any of the other subjects?