“very dubious to say that because you don’t understand something you reject a consensus.”

Where in my article was that done? I explicitly said the opposite.

I made three points in the article: 1) science isn’t free from human error; 2) extrapolation can never factor in the full universe of possibilities, thus forward projections are often unreliable; and 3) there appears to be a human predisposition for predicting the apocalypse, with a 0% success rate.