I think some of the criticisms of climate science have some validity in principle. It’s a relatively new field that is based on many complex and interacting variables. At this scale, it’s difficult to make precise predictions on timescale and extent, and there have been a number of changes to the official line on these issues in recent years. Furthermore, not every study is going to challenge the basic principles of the scientific model on which it is based; if a model is flawed, people may build on it and assume its fundamental accuracy when the facts could better support a different model. Scientists in the past have had pretty large blind spots that seem obvious to us now, so it makes sense to assume that some accepted theories may have significant flaws.
However, if trained scientists (who have vastly more knowledge and data to work with than earlier scientists like Kelvin) should have some humility with regard to their theories and the bounds of human knowledge, lay people who have no experience in the field at all should be a lot more cautious about expressing their opinion. This is especially true given their admission of how complex the system is and the bias from media and powerful interest groups that helps to form that opinion. “It will all work out in the end” is not skepticism. “I’m sure humans aren’t really having much of an effect” isn’t humility. Even if the science is wrong on a number of issues, this does not mean that you are right, and skepticism (if that’s what it actually is) should really start with the opinions that you personally find easiest to accept.
