|Because a group of 'respected' scientists says so?|
Not because scientists say so, but because experiments say so.
Scientists don't just sit around coming up with ideas and then saying "that's probably right, we'll say that." They test and test and test ideas and then test them again and the first time that a well executed, repeatable experiment shows something to be not quite right, scientists are the first to come forward and say our ideas need adjusting. It's why they are in the field to start with, and keeps them in a job.
The key thing about the paragraph I wrote above is that is based upon evidence. The evidence has to be something that everyone can go and measure or observe, otherwise, your science is not valid. The point many people here are trying to make is, as Tim Vine would say, easy-origami (two-fold).
Firstly, the evidence you present comes from badly reputed sources that are not considered reliable.
Secondly, the way you present your arguments is not proper. Saying well x is true, so y must be true, or y is more likely to be true, when x and y are unrelated, adds nothing to your argument. For some reason, you believe it does. It doesn't.
Sources who have a self-interest in gaining publicity are also generally not good.
Anyway, many of your claims are easily being shown to be ridiculous and yet you still refuse to re-consider your view. Why? Why will you not listen to the overwhelming body of evidence and instead believe books, mostly written by one author, who is not considered reliable?