Presenting these two pieces of evidence in juxtaposition, as if they are equally trustworthy, is a bit misleading:

I think we're all well aware that pretty much any given career scientist, particularly one who has chosen to dedicate their lives to public service, is more trustworthy than the current administration, which is on record with tens of thousands of lies, most so lazily told as to convey contempt for the listener: They either think you're stupid enough to believe them, or don't care whether you do.

To take just one characteristic example out of the tens of thousands: the person ruling over the administration famously hand-edited a hurricane map with a marker, to lie to the public about the path of a hurricane, then lied to the public about the markup itself to conceal the previous lie.

That's to say nothing of the disdain the administration has for government and science in general: the long, strong track record there belies any claims of good faith, and indicates that actions they take which worsen one or both, do so with that as the primary motivation.

They don't care what happens to our world because half of them are dispensationalsts and the rest just think: après moi, le déluge.