There are plenty of places where you can find dodgy information about climate change. If you’re the arguing (“debating”) type, you have likely, at some point, been exasperated by the obviously low quality of the sources cited by your opponent (or uncle). Setting aside the occasional conspiratorial mind who believes “those scientists” can’t be trusted, who does everyone else actually trust on the topic?

A survey project led by the University of New Hampshire’s Lawrence Hamilton and Jessica Brunacini and Stephanie Pfirman of Columbia University asked about 700 people in the US this question. Specifically, they asked whether people trusted the leaders in their political party, their faith, their friends and family, websites they frequent, science agencies like NASA, or Fox News.

The most trusted source of climate information was, encouragingly, science agencies, which got the thumbs up from 73 percent of the respondents. Unsurprisingly, family and friends were second at 37 percent; research has shown that a primary factor behind climate change opinions is cultural identity—harmonizing views with family and friends. In this survey, Fox News brought up the rear at just 19 percent.

The survey, which was done shortly after last November’s presidential election, also asked which candidate people had supported. Separating the 232 Trump supporters from the rest of the group (which included people supporting other candidates and those who didn’t vote) brings out some noteworthy differences—and similarities. Trust in science agencies dropped to 57 percent, while Fox News surged into second place with 38 percent. A similar survey from last August turned up the same patterns.

President Trump has since proposed limiting NASA’s Earth science work, offering a budget proposal that eliminates funding for five satellite missions. So the researchers sent another survey this spring to see how people felt about that idea. This survey was answered by about 500 people in New Hampshire only, but the researchers say past surveys have mirrored national results pretty well.

The question introduced Trump’s position and asked whether NASA’s Earth-observing efforts should be cut, expanded, or continued at present levels. A majority of people (58 percent) opted for the easy answer—keep the program as it is. Only 10 percent supported cutting funding, while 23 percent supported expanding it.

Breaking out Trump supporters doesn’t change things that much. The exact same majority portion went for status quo, but support for funding cuts rose to 19 percent while supported for expansion dropped to 13 percent.

So despite public disagreement over whether the results of climate science should be accepted, most people in the US acknowledge that climate scientists like NASA’s can be trusted—and that their work should continue to be funded.