There is a line in the book/movie A Time To Kill where Sandra Bullock's character and Matthew McConaughey's character are talking about the expert opinion, in which case, "The jury success rested almost wholly on the..." "Defending psychiatrist regardless of the quality of the psychological testimony." Meaning, the testimony was believable based solely on the quality of the character of the expert and not in the quality of the information they were providing.
This is analogous to so many things. Who do we believe? It becomes ideological. While science has paved the way for advances and provided understanding of the world beyond any other method humans have ever invented for discovering truth, it isn't perfect or infallible. It has a method of self-correction, but it can take time.
Someone can watch a video like this, and despite his message at the end, they would feel validated in their view that science is no more often right than someone guessing. Listening to "experts" can also be no more better than a novice, especially when "experts" are gurus with no real expertise, or when the expert is not an actual expert in the field they may be studying or commenting on. This could be the case for a scientist in an unrelated field to global warming chiming in with their own climate science study. This all makes it hard to know who to believe.
Conservatives, by nature, tend to hold onto the past and are reluctant for rapid change, so they are more likely to find "expertise" in the leaders they trust who hold old knowledge and wisdom, and liberals are more likely to want to change and move forward, so they trust sources from progressives who hold new knowledge like scientists.
Besides struggling with who to trust and besides losing confidence in our institutions, government and media, the future is bleak, as it pertains to misinformation. When deep fakes and general CGI becomes much more ubiquitous and indistinguishable from real life, it will be near impossible to distinguish between what is real and what is not when looking at anything on a TV or phone. The media is terrible at even attempting to distinguish fact from fiction these days, eager to push out stories before verifying the sources or validity, that they have run fake stories and repeated satirical articles, as if they were real. The second an AI or a super computer starts to run fake news with deep fakes of politicians saying anything it wants indistinguishable from the real thing, digital communication will end.