If you could die at any moment and one person says, "have fun" and another person says, "be a christian or you could spend eternity in hell!", what would you advise?

Actually that's an interesting point. There is a significant amount of the latter in the world. For that reason alone I believe it merits consideration. But attention is not necessarily your agreement. Consider it & come to conclusions as objectively as you can.

Do you trust the scientific process that has led to an overwhelming support for climate change theories in the scientific communities? Do you think that there is sufficient possibility that the process has been corrupted?

Scientific processes do not lead "to an overwhelming support" Scientific processes lead to reproducible experiments. Falsifiable theories.

Human nature leads to politics, which leads to consensus. I can't emphasize enough how important it is to separate science from consensus.

Tommy Kuhn, we miss you.

Reproducible experiments & falsifiable theories lead to overwhelming support. Supposedly, imperfectly and in the long term.

I'm not saying take it at face value. I am saying that in the absence of a personal ability to test & verify & delve into the research, your best bet is a bit of meta research.

What if you look at the data and find there is no chance of a shark as your in a swimming pool?

That depends on your level of trust/expectation from either parties as well as your own assessment of the situation.