I wish I could trust "academic experts". I really do. But all my experiences with academia and academics have been very disappointing.
The first problem can be summed up with the old saying, "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, research.". That's exactly what we see in academia: those who couldn't cut it outside of academia with their bachelor's degree end up back in academic circles, often for the rest of their lives. Academia provides a safe playpen for those who were below the standards of the real world.
Wait.... you're saying you can work in academic research with a Bachelor's? Or you mean that people who can't hack it in the real world go to grad school?
Speaking as someone who a) serves on graduate admissions committees; and b) advises many graduating bachelor's recipients, it's usually exactly the opposite. It takes a great student to get into grad school, and so the less-great students go get a job somewhere. That's a generalization, of course: great students can go get a job too: but a bad student certainly isn't getting into grad school. Caveat - this is physics. Other fields may differ, but all the sciences I'm familiar with operate in similar fashion. Get further from physical science, get different results. But wait, climate science is pretty closely tied to several physical science, and that's what triggered your post, right? Not sociology.
The fourth problem is when you take all of the above and add money into the mix. That's when everything really goes to hell. This is a sure-fire way for even the sciences, which are generally among the least-inept of the academic subjects, to become highly politicized. It's no longer just about inept people doing inept research. Now it's about inept people doing inept research but always finding the "correct" results for politicians who need to legitimize otherwise illegitimate practices like carbon taxes and excessive and costly regulation.
Huh. I review many proposals and papers and have served on funding panels, and can honestly say that I've never seen this in action. You have seen this in action, then.... how and where? I've been pretty impressed with how well funding in my field works, for the most part.
So when such a flawed system provides results or information for my consideration, I have to take what they're saying with a very, very, very big spoonful of salt grains. None of it can be trusted, from the individual level all the way through to entire fields of study.
Then there's an awful lot of the physics I teach and research that you apparently don't trust: from F=ma through E=mc^2 to quarks and neutrinos. Which begs the question: what the heck DO you trust?