The argument is made that facts are selected or engineered to support a negative outcome because those producing the science already deeply believe in a particular truth and inject that bias into their work. Any scientist seeking to prove otherwise is silenced or ridiculed by the majority, who happen to be true believers. It only takes a few dissenting voices or a few cases of statistics being "manipulated" to add credibility to it.
The conspiratorial nature of it makes it even more compelling to untrusting, unsophisticated outsiders.
I'm also suddenly reminded of Umberto Eco's book 'Foucault's Pendulum', which deals with belief and conspiracy. While a fun, satirical work of fiction, I found it to be very constructive in understanding how people can come to believe things that are completely wrong.
This does not fly with most complex disciplines where it takes decades to become proficient.
But relying VS not-relying on experts is a false dichotomy. You can choose experts to trust, as rationally as possible.
I have put thought into how to prove a round earth and all the models of a flat earth I have seen cannot stand up to basic observations of the sun, moon and stars (over the course of one year from a single location).
I would be very interested to in an alternative model that can account for astronomical phenomena that are easily perceived with the unaided eye.
Therefore, climate-change deniers ask if one should trust scientists over their favorite political pundits or favorite CEO's. There are enough incidents of scientists being biased based on funding source to have some skepticism.
When I reply, "Don't pundits and CEO's have similar financial biases"?
Deniers typically respond something like, "Sure, so I have to rely on my gut, and my gut gives them more credit than it gives to scientists. Most scientists come from liberal-leaning universities."