Actually that's an interesting point. There is a significant amount of the latter in the world. For that reason alone I believe it merits consideration. But attention is not necessarily your agreement. Consider it & come to conclusions as objectively as you can.
Do you trust the scientific process that has led to an overwhelming support for climate change theories in the scientific communities? Do you think that there is sufficient possibility that the process has been corrupted?
Reproducible experiments & falsifiable theories lead to overwhelming support. Supposedly, imperfectly and in the long term.
I'm not saying take it at face value. I am saying that in the absence of a personal ability to test & verify & delve into the research, your best bet is a bit of meta research.
Do you trust the scientific process that has led to an overwhelming support for climate change theories in the scientific communities? Do you think that there is sufficient possibility that the process has been corrupted?