...and I don't believe anyone is saying that scientists shouldn't be listened to - it's a matter of whether scientific recommendations should be followed with blind obedience. Especially, when the recommendations & solutions are as dramatic as something like the Carbon Credits plan.
How many times have scientists told us that something is good for us, then bad for us, then good for us? How many "catastrophes" have we endured in the last 30 years - from Global Cooling, to Y2K, to Global Warming cum Climate Change? How often has "there's a huge problem, it's your fault, you need to pay for it" been used by our government to develop new methods of taxation? The public has a reason to be wary in these circumstances. Especially when they see politicians drooling over potential "solutions".
We've been told that the planet is warming, and that it's our fault. This is a conclusion that is being ridden hard by politicians who see a potential revenue boom in carbon taxes. Meanwhile, other scientists aren't sure A) whether we are still warming B) if the warming is a trend that can be projected for 50 years C) if humans are the primary cause, or D) if we can do anything about it. Further, we've seen the failures of the models. The failures of these catastrophic predictions to materialize. And scientists that developed and promoted these models and predictions have been left at loss to explain what happened.
So here we are, reading through another explanation of how the data is "probably" there - based upon statistical algorithms and models - even though we haven't been able to measure it. This is right in line with the "deep water warming" explanation and other rationales of how they weren't wrong - even though their predictions were off.
Further, those that question these failed theories are "bullied" by propagandists. Labeled "Deniers", "Climate-Deniers", and other ridiculous things. When did scientists become a party to this? They can bury their heads in their highly-focused & specialized fields and say "propaganda is not our department" but it is tainting science as a whole. It is damaging the credibility of good scientists everywhere. It is turning science into ideology and dogma.
What would Copernicus say?