Scientists are human. They are not immune to the hyper partisanship that has gripped the rest of society. In fact, the climate science helped create the hyper partisan political environment today because some climate scientists were way to willing to attack scientists who expressed doubt about some of the alarmist claims being made. i.e. dividing what should be a heterogeneous scientific community with a wide range of views into "believers" and "deniers" was pure politics and it should come as no surprise that people who don't share the "believers" politics now don't trust a word they say.
FWIW - the is a debate in the literature today about why the climate models were so wrong over the last 20 years. The article you linked takes the approach that the climate models are infallible oracles and the explanation must come from some other phenomena that cancelled out the warming that did not appear. The other approach asks whether the climate models are wrong about the strength of CO2 induced warming and whether the risk is much less than previously stated. Each camp obviously says the other camp is full of crap but only the side that produces alarmist **** gets reported in the media.
I don't pay the blindest bit of notice to the models. They've always been dodgy at best. I just look at the stuff that's finite, land, fresh water, etc, and the stuff that's increasing, population, and realise it really can't be any other way.
Unless, as stated before, we come up with cold fusion or something equally as remarkable.
I forgot the stuff that's useless. Politicians and world leaders.
Of course, this is one argument I'd be happy to lose.