I think we'd be pretty amazed at what people can discover, when the raw data and the analytical procedures used to draw conclusions from that data are exposed to scrutiny.
I know how to run climate simulations, given a huge dump of climate data I would _not_ be able to draw any new conclusions out of it, I can guarantee that to you.
My point is that this idea that distrust in science stems from a lack of open data is wrong, and instead product of concerted and ongoing effort of propaganda and defunding of academia. Climate change is at this stage more a political problem than it is a scientific one.
I think that's certainly true, but it doesn't account of the scores of unforced errors that our institutions and academy's are making on an almost daily basis that has eroded any credibility. Here are just a few examples...
CDC tweets that masks are 80% effective at "reducing your chance of getting COVID" - which is highly selective and word smithed information AT BEST. The real number is more like 11% and only when it's surgical. CDC fails to mention at all the cloth masks are pretty inadequate - which would be actual helpful information for people... https://twitter.com/cdcdirector/status/1456645731691925518 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02457-y
American Academy of Pediatrics pushes FDA to approve vaccines and decries FDA's request for 1K more subjects to add to the 1500 in the trial. Then goes on to say Delta is "very dangerous to children" even though there is still no evidence to suggest that Delta is any more dangerous for children and rate of hospitalized chidren with serious disease hasn't changed from 2 in 100,000. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/american-academy-of-pediat... https://apnews.com/article/delta-variant-coronavirus-kids-40...
We could go on and on. People are not stupid. They see this stuff, know that they are being misled and that erodes trust. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter if the misleading is in good faith or not.
When you push wildly experimental things by calling them "Vaccinations", when they do not confer immunity (!) but primarily reduce symptoms, and hence are not a "public good" (protect the at-risk unvaccinated population), but are a "personal good" (reduce your individual risks) -- it is, in fact, you that are destroying the credibility of public vaccination programs! People aren't stupid. Avoiding a potentially risky genetic treatment that doesn't confer community protection, when I believe effective treatments are available, is sound logic.
Likewise, creating artificial markets that penalize highly efficient, clean and non-murderous producers of hydrocarbon products (ie. Canadian), while simultaneously giving a complete pass to murderous and polluting regimes (China, Middle-Eastern) is repugnant. A "solution" which is this terrible is not acceptable, and hence will be rejected (eg. by people, for example, that don't agree with tossing gays off roof-tops or harvesting organs from undesirable people groups)
So, until "those people" who conflate rejecting insane non-immunizing experimental treatments with denying "vaccine efficacy", or conflate rejecting ineffective transfers of wealth from law-abiding oil producers to murderous polluters as rejecting "climate change" -- we're not going to reach agreement on "trusting the science".