Whilst the overwhelming majority of scientists concur that climate change poses a severe threat to our future, and is already impacting daily life in some regions, opponents of this viewpoint regularly voice counter-narratives in the public sphere, media, and political arenas. These counter-narratives often include allegations of bias among scientists, such as overextending conclusions, selectively publishing findings to support specific agendas, or accepting bribes to produce results favourable to certain political decisions. Despite such behaviour being considered unethical within the scientific community, a few cases of fabricated research have been noted in recent years, alongside the replication crisis in social sciences. These instances, though exceptional, might have eroded the perceived value of scientific consensus on the dangers of climate change. Therefore, we hypothesised that individuals endorsing conspiracy theories about scientists would exhibit less worry about climate change and feel less personal responsibility for reducing it. We also posited that individuals endorsing conspiracy theories about scientists would be more likely to believe that climate change is a natural phenomenon, not human-caused, or would be more likely to deny climate change in general. Further, aligning with previous research, we explored whether the association between endorsing conspiracy theories about scientists and these three criteria varied with political orientation. To test the hypotheses, we analysed complete data from all participants across countries included in the tenth wave of the European Social Survey using multi-group structural equation modelling (MGSEM) with cluster-robust standard errors (with countries as clusters). The results confirmed that individuals with a greater tendency to endorse conspiracy theories about scientists were also slightly less worried about climate change and felt less personally responsible for its reduction, even after controlling for sex, age, education, and economic status. In general, stronger endorsement of conspiracy theories about scientists was linked to a higher likelihood of climate change denial (rather than attributing climate change to natural or human causes) and a slightly higher likelihood of attributing climate change to natural processes.. Additionally, the moderating role of political orientation was evident solely for the belief in climate change: among strong left- or right-leaning individuals, the relationship between disbelief in climate change and the endorsement of conspiracy theories about scientists was stronger compared to politically moderate participants. This suggests a non-linear relationship where endorsement of conspiracy theories on scientists at both the left and the right extremes leads to a greater likelihood of disbelieving in climate change.