What are my qualifications? There are underlying qualifications in the subjects that I take up. I don't repeat what others have covered. I break new ground. Then I make sure the evidence is there and unquestionable. Perhaps most importantly, there is a lot of material, in science and out, which requires a lot of experience beyond academics. Most scientists are too restricted and busy to go beyond academics. I cover endless amounts of such material which other scientists have never given the slightest thought to.
But qualifications are seldom an appropriate question apart from necessary authority. Any evidence based discussion moves forward and can be corrected. The real problem is that uninformed persons promote subjective opinions which have no objective basis to be corrected, such as looking out the window and seeing global warming.
Even though I don't have a Ph.D. degree, I have the functional equivalent of one, having taken more advanced courses than usual at three universities and publishing independent research, where most Ph.D. candidates only publish by doing group research. Being driven out of graduate school by mental pain allowed me to spend about ten hours per day doing independent research for forty years undistracted by anything else.
A lot of strivers try to pretend that not being a part of a certified power structure is a disqualification for everything relevant. That's a subjective set of values. An objective fact is that there is a lot that needs to be done which cannot be done within the certified power structures. I do that sort of thing.
Critical to gaining anything from research is abstract evaluation. Minds do two things, they contact memories and they produce abstract thought. Professionals are so busy using their memories that they have no time for abstract thought. Abstract thought is how knowledge is acquired and used. Knowledge builds upon knowledge. The more you acquire, the easier it is to acquire more. I spend all of my time with abstract through since I have no distractions. I encounter problems, spend much time evaluating them and find answersin evolution biology, physics and electronics.
Then there are endless fortuitous experiences which I encountered which are indispensable for some types of study. An agriculture background appears to be essential for much of evolution biology, as professional biologists miss too much due to an absence of suitable background and experience.
An example is the morel mushroom. University scientists claim a leaf mold is a conidial stage of the morel. The morel only grows in sandy soil, which never dries out, because, like the yeasts which it evolved from, the morel does not tolerate dehydration. Leaf molds spend most of their time under dry conditions, which the morel could never tolerate. Other morel scientists have never noticed that the morel only grows on sandy soil, because they don't have a clue as to why soil type is relevant.
I studied vocational agriculture in high school and started college in agriculture before switching majors to bacteriology. Everything about agriculture is important in evaluating soil biology, which is in turn essential to evaluating evolution biology. Ninety percent of this information is not in the heads of university scientists who study biology and evolution.
Another example is the biological transition that occurred 66 million years ago as the dinosaurs died out. Biologists don't know what happened as dinosaurs died out, and they don't know why dinosaurs got so large. Most incredibly, there is no evidence in published science that a major biological transition occurred 66 million years ago. The phenomenon is only referred to as an extinction event. Yet all of modern biology began at that time leaving behind almost all of the previous biology. It was grass that reshaped biology ridding the environment of oppressive brush that was holding back mammals and flowering plants. Other biologists don't have a clue as to what grass is or why it would matter. Agies understand grass.
Then there is the experience of tromping through Oregon forests. It isn't possible anymore, as the old-growth Oregon forests have been mowed down and cannot return. There is nothing else similar in the U.S. When the Washington forests were cleared during the nineteenth century, they never returned, because the endless overcast caused brush and broadleafs to replace them. The California forests never did have the heavy growth of Oregon due to the dryer and hotter conditions.
I used to work in the rock quarries in Oregon during the summers while in college spending a lot of time tromping through the forests. What you find is why the dinosaurs got so large. It takes a lot of power to tromp through brush. During dinosaur years, the lowlands were covered with nonwoody brush which the dinosaurs ate. It would have taken a lot of size and power to tromp through that brush. Biologists have endless other explanations for dinosaur size which are not credible.
Artists' drawings of dinosaur environments show something like city parks with a variety of trees and grassy malls with a sprinkling of brush. That wasn't it. It was homogeneous brush with no space for anything else. The evidence is in the fact that there were a few flowering plants on the hills, but they were so rare that their fossil evidence did not show up until twenty years ago. The oppressive brush kept the flowering plants rare. It also kept the mammals small, as they had to go under and through the nonwoody brush. After grass replaced the nonwoody brush, mammals got large, while flowering plants and broadleaf trees exploded like out of a slingshot. Other biologists are clueless on it all.