Why should we believe our peers when most papers don't include the data used, and there have been many historical examples of scientific dishonesty? Is there any real substitute for first hand experimentation/deduction?
To give a more clear example:

When I first learned about global warming, in Highschool, it made sense. When I then was wondering why sometimes it's colder in seasons where it's supposed to be warm in certain places, I read more about climate change, and it kinda still made sense that it could happen. But all the while, I am not fully proficient in the statistical methods, the types of measurements, the datasets, and etc. used. Neither is the average scientist (although I'm sure you'll all larp about being experts). We are literally just blindly believing these descriptions and conclusions.

How can this be avoided? I feel like a lot of anti-science feelings stem from this same source.