A major factor missing from the article is that scientists, when they translate their work into layperson's terms, often don't take care to distinguish between different levels of confidence in their conclusions. Scientific theories that are nailed down by massive experimental data and a track record of predictions accurate to many decimal places are talked about the same way, by scientists, as theories that are still being developed and refined and don't have anywhere near the same level of confidence. Even in a single field (e.g., physics), scientists often aren't careful to distinguish the solid base from speculative models at the frontiers (e.g., the Standard Model of particle physics vs. string theory, or the standard hot Big Bang model of cosmology from inflation and various speculations about what came before inflation). This means that, once a lay person sees that any scientific conclusion turned out to be wrong, which is going to happen because science is not perfect, they think it means Science is wrong, period--because the scientists themselves painted the picture that way.