(Disclaimer: I accept the validity and likely occurrence of most global-warming predictions as put forth by bodies such as the IPCC.)

Now that that's out of the way, I would like to extend a friendly word of caution. The phrase "trust of science" is truly terrible. I'm sorry, but it is. You must never say anything like that again. I beg you.

This is because science is based on the exact opposite of trust: an experiment's ability to be replicated and independently verified. Of course, the average person has no ability to do that. They must rely on the reports of experts and those who have the skills to understand, interpret and verify the data.

So, what he's really undermining is the public's trust of the scientific establishment, which is a bundle of public and private institutions that perform the above-mentioned tasks. The science isn't necessarily in doubt, it's the people and organizations that are relaying the results to the public that are suspect. What is their motivation? Are they impartial? Do they have an agenda? That's a very different thing.

Now, you can believe what you want about the scientific establishment, but its record is not pure. At all. They've always been a large part of the military-industrial complex, developing terrible weapons and contributing to imperialistic behavior and death and destruction. The scientific establishment also pushed hard for eugenics.

So the scientific establishment has hardly been a socially progressive body that one should put their trust in. So is skepticism warranted? Absolutely. Is more skepticism warranted of Charles Koch and other capitalist billionaires? Yes, by a factor of 100. It's obvious who is probably more impartial, but public research universities and their employees taking government money are not the pure, independent entities that one might think.