This is almost a textbook example of the conspiracy mindset you’re claiming to describe… You start with the conclusion — “the science must be too complex to trust” — then invent an invisible hierarchy of people supposedly controlling thousands of scientists, assume dissenters are being silenced, and treat the absence of evidence for that conspiracy as evidence that the conspiracy is working. That isn't scientific scepticism. It's unfalsifiable reasoning: whatever the evidence says, the conspiracy is simply assumed to explain it. And nobody needs to personally understand every equation in climate science to establish whether the conclusions are reliable. We don't individually verify every calculation in medicine, engineering or particle physics. We examine the independent evidence, replication, predictions, competing explanations and expert consensus. “Majority doesn't prove anything” is technically true — but it's a straw man. The argument isn't “scientists are right because they're the majority.” It's that multiple independent lines of evidence converge on the same conclusion, and proposed alternatives fail to explain the observations. As for your imaginary army of scientists who secretly disagree but remain silent to protect their careers: that's not evidence. It's a story constructed specifically to make the theory impossible to disprove. Ironically, you've just demonstrated the very mindset the thread is about.
Create an account or sign in to comment