Why people insisting "Trust the Science!" is bullshit, Reason #2:

The information you're given is too often crap.
A climate scientist has admitted exaggerating the impact of global warming on Californian wildfires to get his research published.

Patrick T Brown claims studies about climate change are rejected by scientific journals if they do not 'support certain narratives' and they favour 'distorted' research which overstates dangers.

He says his research article, which was published last week in Nature and titled 'Climate warming increases extreme daily wildfire growth risk in California', focused exclusively on climate change and intentionally ignored other key factors.

The US state has suffered extreme wildfires in recent years which have led to loss of life and property. Writing in The Free Press, Dr Brown said: 'I knew not to try to quantify key aspects other than climate change in my research because it would dilute the story that prestigious journals like Nature... want to tell.'

Explaining why he did this, Dr Brown, a lecturer at Johns Hopkins University in the US, said: '... it is critically important for scientists to be published in high-profile journals...

The response from Nature bothers me:
Dr Magdalena Skipper, editor in chief at Nature, which is based in London, said the journal did not have a 'preferred narrative' when it comes to science. She said it had an 'expectation' that researchers had used the most appropriate data, methods and results, adding that 'to deliberately not to do so is, at best, highly irresponsible'.
The bold is the part that bothers me, because 'most appropriate' can mean one thing to an honest researcher, and another to "I know what they want, and I'll give it to them."  Maybe I'm being too suspicious, but, unfortunately, I doubt it.