It is true that the scientist always doubts or questions. It is also true in science that there is no %100 truth's. There are just different degrees of truth in different theories.
Like for example, a hypothetical study done on say eating margarine every day cause's an increase of %10 chance of cancer in a sample of 10,000 people.
This truth would be a very unlikely and you should put no faith in it, cause the sample size is very small.
Now take Einsteins general relativity theory. It is 100 years old now and hasnt been disproved by countless experiments. Gps and computers would not work with out it.
This theory while may never be %100 proven you can have faith in it because so much evidence supports it.
In general physics in science has an almost %100 percent accuracy, cause it has been built for 100's of years.
Biology on the other hand is more complex, there are so many variables that any biology science accuracy would
be way less accurate.
Carbon trapping in heat is physics and any wise man would not argue with physics, unless you have the brain of Einstien.
Science is more of a way of thinking then it is a body of knowledge.
Yes you should maybe doubt carbon warming, but you should also doubt not carbon warming.
If you weigh the evidence on either side carbon warming is the side logic takes.
Cause if you do not then you do not believe in quantum mechanics, and that theory is tested more accurately then Einstiens.
With that it does not matter about politcs, you know carbon traps heat. And putting more of this stuff in the atmosphere traps more and more heat.
