That is an interesting parable. Skepticism is an important quality and I suppose it comes down to a choice between trusting in your own experiences (however limited they may be) versus trusting in other people's experiences (however unreliable they may be). Everyone approaches that trade off differently. I think a big issue is that people place too much trust in the media's talking-heads, which at least in its mainstream corporate form, is little more than capitalistic and neoliberal economic propaganda. Like you point out, the real science is often inaccessible to a layman, which makes approaching that trade off even more challenging.

Mass media propagation of some kind of "agreed-upon-consensus-by-people-smarter-than-me" pales in comparison to simple demonstrations of scientific principles, such that people can gain both expanded experiential understanding, as well as more trust in those researching the bigger reality beyond our five immediate corporeal senses. Unfortunately it's hard to find simple demonstrations of complex modern scientific principles. I expect that the scientists who study these things should endeavor to be very skeptical of accepted theories and be accurate in every little detail; however, I feel that myself, as a layman, must acknowledge it's counterproductive to be skeptical of every scientific theory and to only trust if I can find accuracy in every little detail. It does feel like a little bit of a "religion" when you look at it that way, but we all have to come to terms with the fact that reality is bigger than what our individual five physical senses can show us in our ephemeral lives, regardless of a spiritual or material world view.

When some media-face says "Well, I'm skeptical of global warming because it was cold this week, and the sea level doesn't look any higher to me today than it did yesterday!" or "Well, I'm convinced of climate change because 99% of scientists agree x is causing y and z is our only hope of a solution!" I would approach both of those examples with extreme skepticism. Not enough people go beyond that to listen to the actual scientists, realizing that their theories are complex and fallible, but at the same time, profound in their potential ramifications for the future of our species. It's easy to believe in the theory of gravity, but considerably more difficult to believe in the theory of relativity. That isn't a big deal for civilization, unless belief in the theory of relativity was the only way to see our planet careening towards a black hole.

I suppose while I do value skepticism, skepticism for skepticism's sake is deleterious if that act of questioning lacks the tools, evidence and cognition required to form a better understanding of reality. I can be skeptical of global warming, but would my skepticism have the potential to bring about a superior theory that can explain the changes scientists are observing? Probably not. I would value a climate scientist who is genuinely skeptical of global warming, because I sincerely hope that "the consensus" is wrong about what is causing these changes to our ecosystem, but for the average Joe-sixpack to simply cite "Skepticism!" as a reason by itself for disbelieving something seems counterproductive.

On a more personal level, would you say that you're skeptical of the theory of anthropogenic global warming via carbon-dioxide emissions or methane feedback loops? While I do lend my belief to the scientists promulgating these theories, I am not closed to investigating opposing theories; as a layman, my scientific scrutiny is fairly weak but I have yet to come across any cohesive explanations that give me serious doubt about the prevailing theories on climate change.