You don't have trust some party (like scientists) to be able to determine the truth. Truth manifests in simple way - it is consistent.
People who are really interested in truth and people who are not (either because they delude themselves or want to con someone) have very different thought patterns, which are pretty well visible in the way they write (the skill to recognize these patterns is called critical thinking).
The consistency of the truth plays a big role - it usually means that people who are genuinely interested in truth try to build a consistent model, while con men are interested in criticism of the model on the fringes.
So one basic way to understand who is right, look if they have a consistent (and also refutable) model that explains the evidence.
Now for AGW theory in particular, there is no serious contender for a model that doesn't show warming due to greenhouse gases. People interested in truth would love to have an alternative model, that explains the evidence, but the fact is, no one successfully came up with one. So perhaps one should accept that we have is correct.
You can also look at critics of the theory and see how they are inconsistent. Some critics admit there is warming, but disagree humans cause it. Some critics think that warming is due to the Sun. Some critics think that it's too late to do anything about it. Some critics think that current warming is natural based on some cycles. And so on.. now all these opposing viewpoints are inconsistent with each other. Why they are inconsistent? Because again, the people raising the criticism don't have a good model, that properly accounts for the evidence.
I suggest you actually go and learn a bit more what AGW theory (current best model explaining the data) is saying. Good way to do that is also to look at history of the model, because it also gives insight whether or not it is a con (the truthful models have complicated history of getting some things wrong at times, while bad models have no or very cartoonish history). I really recommend this resource: https://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm
I'm not particularly stupid (north of 130 last time I measured), I'm not in the pocket of big oil (works with solar power, the more solar, the more chance I get a fat bonus).
Some things just doesn't feel right about the AGW debate and I try to debate it and leave a few, friendly pointers here and at AT about the things that sticks out (private jets to climate conferences etc) but it feels quite a few people sits ready to rubber stamps anyone who isn't zealous enough about supporting every aspect of every part and every proponent of the AGW.
I am not trying to be condescending, I am just trying to explain things that perhaps should be obvious. You said you have to trust the scientists, I don't think it's true, and I explained why.
But then you say:
"I try to debate it and leave a few, friendly pointers here"
So perhaps what I just said is not obvious to you! Instead of understanding what the actual scientists' model of AGW is, you're looking for ridiculous reasons why it's not true. Exactly what you shouldn't be doing if you agree with what I wrote above. And I left you a "friendly pointer" of what you should be reading.
You should also be charitable to other people. Yes, we are all aware of the irony of these climate conferences. But what do you want to do? James Hansen is a good example (his short talk from the conference is probably the best one, by the way). He decided to leave the politics in mid-90s, and focus back to science, only to recently return, because he's just p* off by inaction. So yeah, people tried not to use planes, but to what effect?
Unfortunately, pointing out things like private jets to climate conference just makes you sound like you are taking cheap potshots. You have the leaders from 195 countries attending a meeting. Yes. Heads of State sometimes use private jets. Other than symbolism, it is entirely unimportant.
People who are really interested in truth and people who are not (either because they delude themselves or want to con someone) have very different thought patterns, which are pretty well visible in the way they write (the skill to recognize these patterns is called critical thinking).
The consistency of the truth plays a big role - it usually means that people who are genuinely interested in truth try to build a consistent model, while con men are interested in criticism of the model on the fringes.
So one basic way to understand who is right, look if they have a consistent (and also refutable) model that explains the evidence.
Now for AGW theory in particular, there is no serious contender for a model that doesn't show warming due to greenhouse gases. People interested in truth would love to have an alternative model, that explains the evidence, but the fact is, no one successfully came up with one. So perhaps one should accept that we have is correct.
You can also look at critics of the theory and see how they are inconsistent. Some critics admit there is warming, but disagree humans cause it. Some critics think that warming is due to the Sun. Some critics think that it's too late to do anything about it. Some critics think that current warming is natural based on some cycles. And so on.. now all these opposing viewpoints are inconsistent with each other. Why they are inconsistent? Because again, the people raising the criticism don't have a good model, that properly accounts for the evidence.
I suggest you actually go and learn a bit more what AGW theory (current best model explaining the data) is saying. Good way to do that is also to look at history of the model, because it also gives insight whether or not it is a con (the truthful models have complicated history of getting some things wrong at times, while bad models have no or very cartoonish history). I really recommend this resource: https://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm