People, In my experience, reject evidence because people such as Liberals tend to recite evidence as a short cut to policy. "Trust the Experts" is some incantation to avoid the political questions. Thus people reject the evidence because why would they trust the experts have THEIR interests at heart? I've had a lot of very good conversations on Climate Change and the running thread isn't a denial of mankind terraforming our own atmosphere, but more a complete lack of trust that the policy prescriptions will be anything good for their lives. And on that, they are generally correct in that assessment. The Rightoid answer to the Liberals trying to depoliticize the topic via "Trust the Experts!" is to simply themselves sidestep by stating its all a hoax. Both are acts of de-politicization.
The Scientific Method doesn't answer policy questions. A scientist can tell me how much of a chemical is in the sky or if a rock is made of silicon or iron, they aren't going to have a scientific, or objectively true, policy prescription. Because that is what you are angling for with this "Trust the experts" schtick. A way to describe a policy platform as having "No alternative" because its just simply a perfect and only valid answer by appealing to some non-political authority. But that is as I've said merely de-politicization.
- - - Updated - - -
Well there you have it, you at last are admitting that "Expert" comes in many stripes and colors.