The question is...
Can you trust a person to accurately explain something that supposedly happened 100 million years ago?
Yet these same people are certainly like the rest of us in that they probably can't recall what they had for dinner a month ago.
Through a complicated, fragmented explanation, fraught with missing essential details, we're supposed to believe this crap and take it for face value because those professing such nonsense have 20 years of formal education?
Let's not forget that these same people who are entrenched in academic society couldn't hold a job anywhere else.
The whole global warming issue is about money and power. Follow it to its source and you'll discover that whoever can persuade the masses in believing it will win BIG. Whether or not global warming is actually happening is inconsequential. It's all about money and power.
You are certainly correct in one sense. Your thesis is a true analogy to radio listeners believing hucksters like Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingrham, and the rest of the cast of thousands who, at one moment repeat what you say in your post and then, in their crass commercial posture ask us to have faith in their assurance that the product du jour is the best, the brightest, the---(fill in the blank). Similarly, their ''personal'' endorsement (vis-a'-vis the product merely buying time for an ad) is intended to convince you upon your total faith in their trustworthiness.
Thus, when the product or service is later found to fail, injure users, or any similar factual establishment that your consumer's faith was misplaced, it is not merely rhetorical to ask: Does that failure justify the listener's future doubt when the talking head is repeating yet another assurance of a fact relating to public policy, political integrity or the purported truthfulness of one person, himself (herself) or another? And, with regard to the future faith of the listener when still another product or service is hawked by the host, what level of trust is reasonable for the listener to have for that product specifically and all representations, assurances and interpretive conclusions as a universal matter?