I'll get back to this because I want to try semi-formalize my thought process. It has to do with being able to answer questions clearly and concisely, being able to indicate the boundaries of your own personal knowledge, indicating the boundaries of human knowledge, and being able to estimate the effects of possible sources of error throughout the workflow (e.g. temp sensors malfunctioning, publication selection bias, choice of statistical tests, etc). Someone who "knows what they are talking about" may not have all this info handy, but will know where to look to find it.
Wow. After all that, I still don't think that's a very effective method at all. It's too much work, which likely means you won't achieve your goal. It requires too much knowledge on the subject, which you're unlikely to ever possess. It appears to almost have an agenda (which is bias). It requires you to have a deep discussion with an expert, which you're unlikely to have, and then that calls into question who you chose to have said discussion with.
Honestly, for all your efforts, you're not going to achieve a good answer.
Here's a better way. Learn about the different ways climate change is being studied by reading mainstream articles written in science magazines. Take note of how independent methods (i.e ice cores vs. satellite studies vs. temperature measurements) corroborate each other. Learn about the motivations and credentials of those who seem to be constantly arguing against climate change and see how often you can discover any legitimacy and no connection to oil companies with said arguments.
net effect on clouds