This one is the lack of qualification ruse
It's argumentum ad verecundiam, and arguably even broader than that, so let's explain it one more time. You should not listen to arguments that are simply stated as "X said it, therefore it must be true", especially when X is not in the field in question in the first place.
It is assumed that anyone who is not qualified in a particular subject is unworthy to comment on the said subject.
Uh, Fact vs Opinion anyone? A physicist can say whatever he wants regarding rocks, but it's the evidence gathered by geologists that will determine whether he was correct or not. No evidence, no science, simple as that.
I begin to wander how the self educated Michael Faraday would fare in such an atmosphere?
The point.
^
Your head.
I'll quote myself: "Who go on to follow the scientific method of hunting for evidence, testing out their ideas, gathering enough data for a conclusion and then testing them again." Michael Faraday and indeed any other scientist you care to mention got on with their ideas and actually tested them, and if they decided to comment on wildly different subjects than their fields, we will similarly take what they say with skepticism and weigh it up with available evidence. This is called science. It's not a popularity contest.
The sceptical bag-of-tricks is specifically designed to prevent progress and change
I don't think my palm is big enough for my face here. You do understand the definition of skepticism, correct? There has certainly been arguments made for being 'too' skeptical, of doubting literally everything you come across, and if you'd like to point out an instance where that's taken place, do so, but merely asking for evidence to confirm or contradict a single quote or letter from Einstein is not the prevention of progress and change.
Skeptics want to learn. Hell, a great many might even be fascinated if some of the nonsense surrounding 2012 was real, just because it'd give us yet more things to study and probe and question and understand the Universe. But the evidence doesn't point that way. The evidence doesn't point is Einstein being a geologist. The evidence doesn't point to proponents having a clue what they're talking about.
I note with interest that the main points of my thread are unanswered.
Just because you don't like the answer, doesn't mean they aren't answered.