Facts are, they do not need to be stipulated.

Peer-reviewed science data does not exist. Scientists promoting your mantra do not ask for reviews from scientists opposing their views, and they do not write reviews of their research.

As citizens, we have to make sense out of this mess. After all, we have to pay for it. And we will be the most affected by the consequences.

I do not claim that “most climate scientists are either incompetent or corrupt.” But I see a complex of political, ideological, emotional, and financial circumstances that muddle the science. I have a problem as well when climate scientists have strong opinions about economic and political measures we should take in our response to observed climate changes. Politics and economy are not their areas of expertise.

You are correct; the sentence questioned by you was an unfortunate shortcut to the explanation given in the next paragraph. I deleted it

I do not know why you mention Dunning/Krueger so often. I recognize the names but do not get how they are related to our conversation.