Trying to describe global warming with solid science is beyond most people; even someone smart (regardless of other "issues") like Scott Adams feels the need to

Trying to describe global warming with solid science is beyond most people; even someone smart (regardless of other "issues") like Scott Adams feels the need to ask why there are multiple models and why don't we just pick the best one. Most people accept science solely on the basis of the tangible results it produces, and feel free to be prefer gut feelings (superstitious, spiritual or otherwise) where they believe, or are led to believe, that it doesn't. However, handwaving the science behind global warming theories makes it easy to refute with non-facts. And due to the time scales involved, you can't fall back to shared experiences to get people to accept the parts they don't understand, the way they do for example with illness and medicine (mostly).