Climate change - do you need to trust the experts?

I think the accepted wisdom in society is that the study of climate change is such a specialised subject that we need to place our faith in our climatologists, since they are our experts in this field. I think this notion is erroneous, and I will suggest as much with an analogy. When you go to a doctor, do you blindly accept whatever they say, or do you filter it through your own thought process. This approach might seem a little more difficult on the issue of climate change because its so far removed from people's lives. The task of critiquing science falls upon intellectuals like me that have studied science, who are aware of the arguments, but apply what scientists aren't applying:
1. A broader perspective: Many of the so-called experts are so specialised that they fail to see the broader trends or context of the argument.
2. A critical perspective: A great many scientists are not critical thinkers. Why? Because they tend to be empiricists rather than rationalists, and if they are rationalists.
3. An objective perspective: Even if they are rationalists, they tend to be floating conceptualists indulging in rationalisations. They are compelled to delude themselves to achieve a certain understanding that is not consonant with the facts of reality.

Armed with this information, one can place oneself in a powerful position to argue against these people. But it does require one to have some understanding of science and natural processes, as well as the capacity to critically appraise information, just as you would do with your GP. We tend to be cynical about doctors because the modern medical centre means we are often examined by a new doctor every time we have an appointment, and we hear stories of doctors making poor diagnoses. We have some knowledge of medicine from reading, and more impotantly, we are in a position to ask questions and to critique their responses to establish trust. Finally we can go to alternative doctors for a different interpretation. Science is a little better than medicine because scientists are already divided into camps. If you listen to the rhetoric of one group, they will tell you that there is no opposition to the greenhouse concept. The reality however is that there is opposition, but one group would rather not recognise them so they can push through with their agenda. Of course this is not in the interests of science.