Additional problem related to "Trust"
Who do you Trust, about what, and how much?
And who do you not trust, and who do you think may be manipulating the data?

In the discussion about Climate change a lot is about Trust.

A fair way is to TRUST NO-ONE.

While you can listen to different sides of a discussion, you need to assume that both sides are making some over-simplifcations, proejctions are and stuck in group-think.

And the evidence that they bring forward needs to be verified via different ways.
Does the evidence still look consistent when combined with different sources?
Is there a manipulation of the data in some way?
With commercial or political projects this can be expected.

So more important than the data itself is:
Can we verify the data?

If it is about a scientific model we can have other criteria: Like "Prediction".
Do the predictions made by the scientists in the past match the reality that is now?
And if it is not, we can simply that the scientists were not correct,
and are not correct now if they are using the same model or way of thinking.

Other scientific criteria are: repeatability, consistency, transperancy, etc.

But if we use these criteria we will see that many scientists are falling short or even failing.
And this is why they often defend their hypotheses/theories with a curtain of fallacies to make people believe in them.

And this is why I put the fallacies first:
They already indicate that something is not correct with the whole way of thinking.
But we to find out the truth, we still need to investigate what logical or scientific problems they are trying to hide with the fallacies.