The public is relying upon fake science. It matter whether science is real or fake. Would a fake automobile do what it is supposed to do? Neither would fake science.
Global warming was produced through fake science. It doesn't exist in real science. Therefore, it matters whether science is real or fake.
The primary method of presenting global warming to the public is to use modeling. Modeling is nothing resembling science. It is how fakes convince gullible persons of something. Modeling not only lacks reproducibility, it is not even a measurement; it is a synthesis.
To start with, some defining is needed. What is science? There is a bad habit of calling anything more complex than eating with a fork and spoon science. People have a right to use words however they want. The question is, what do the words mean.
A very important point is the difference between acquiring scientific knowledge and using it for something. Both are called science but should not be. Only the method of acquiring the information in a reliable manner will determine what truth and knowledge are.
What this means is that modeling may have a legitimate purpose; it just is not a method of acquiring knowledge. Instead, it is a method of presentation, however reliable it might be. A method of presentation is not a derivation of knowledge, even if it informs someone of something they call knowledge. Informing someone is not the same as deriving knowledge.
Applying real science to the question of global warming shows that no method of making significant measurements exists for answering the questions raised on global warming. Therefore, the answers have to be guessed at. What can be done is to apply 500 years of evolved scientific knowledge to the questions and show that there are no valid measurements being made due to infinite randomness and complexity in the effects which control climate.