I bought the book The Skeptical Environmentalist, for just this reason. I love hearing dissenting opinions from people who aren't a PR firm flunky. Bjørn Lomborg was and is paying a high price for his honest heterodoxy, and the least we can do is listen and not lump him in with the self-serving, lying Koch brother funded PR machine. That effort is driven by the psychological requirement of emotionally manipulating people to your side, not by an intellectually honest questioning of "common sense", and it's a real shame the two get confused.
It's: obey authority. That's what they really mean when they say it. It's philosophically very wide, it represents a much broader spectrum for the person using it than just science. What you're witnessing is a coward's soul laid bare, when you witness someone shut down discussion with bumper sticker regurgitations.
When you read the history of any given authoritarian regime of more recent times, there is a large fraction of the general population that tremendously assists the monsters into coming to power, through endless acquiescing. They're the gray moralists, the fence sitters: who am I to have a brain, who am I to have an opinion, little me, who am I to do anything, who am I to hold an opinion separate from such and such important person, I do what I'm told when I'm told without asking questions. They're zombies and they're terrifying to observe in action.
Also at the time, there was huge reactionary responses to Trumpism, BLM was in full fling, and there wasn't much mental space (and time) left for most people to make clear informed decisions. The trustworthy-looking authorities were saying it's not a leak... and wink-wink if you think it is, you're a Trump supporter.
Now that US internal politics is a lot less saturated with crazy stuff, it seems like there's more breathing room for people to sit back and requestion their prior beliefs. And the audience is more receptive, more ready to hear, less occupied with anti-Trumpism.
Maybe they suffer from a deficiency of midichlorions.
And the alternative to a supposed "scientific belief" is "wishful thinking".
You can believe in scientists' claims about what scientific studies say/mean, or about what the scientific consensus on a question is — without believing any random claim a group of scientists makes about any random subject.
Specifically, there is strong reason to treat scientists as just like any other group of people, where claims about how the work of science gets done (e.g. whether it's possible for a lab to have an accident resulting in a leak) are concerned.
It would be naive to believe that every single person out there is equipped with the knowledge and the critical thinking skills to discern between good and bad information, thus it would be vastly preferable that people trust science.
It also spills over into other domains. If people feel they aren't allowed to be curious or skeptical about the origins of CoV2, how are they going to feel when you tell them manmade global warming is "settled science"?
Curiosity is what fuels life. It's not healthy for us or for our discourse to suppress it.