Climate Skeptics Always Assume the Risks Are Overhyped

Bret Stephens of the New York Times made a splash the other day with a column questioning the scientific consensus on climate change. Stephens didn’t cite any skeptical research papers or alternative theories -- his doubt was based purely on distrust of those who make confident predictions:

How far should we follow this principle of reflexive skepticism of expert consensus? Should we question whether matter is made of protons and electrons, just because scientists tell us with absolute confidence that these particles exist? How about whether the Earth is round? Should we view these findings as hubris, and withhold credence until scientists humbly acknowledge the possibility that electrons don’t exist and the world is flat? I feel like that’s not very rational.