Mr. Stephens’s assertion that just 36 percent of Americans care a “great deal” about the problem is not surprising, since its ultimate impact seems far away while we all have more immediate problems pressing us in our everyday lives. But the concern is growing steadily as more evidence piles up.

ARLIE SCHARDT, WASHINGTON

The writer is chairman of Friends of the Earth.

To the Editor:

After skimming the comments section of Bret Stephens’s first New York Times column, I was disappointed to see the hysterical reaction of my fellow liberals to this measured, insightful essay and its author. It seemed as though readers could not bring themselves to carefully read and consider a column about climate change written by a conservative, and therefore could not appreciate that Mr. Stephens is neither a denier nor an advocate for inaction with respect to anthropogenic climate change. I would advise them to calm down and read it again, since Mr. Stephens made some excellent points.

Welcome to the neighborhood, Mr. Stephens. You may encounter hostility, but some of us are glad to see a new face with fresh opinions, however often we may disagree.

SUSAN COVINGTON, HOUSTON

To the Editor:

Bret Stephens presents us with a false comparison when he likens the science of climate change to predictions about Hillary Clinton’s election. Political polls are obviously unscientific and prone to error. The virtually universal conclusion of climate scientists the world over is that global warming can do great harm to our earth. The only uncertainty concerns timing and magnitude.

If we err, it must be on the side of extreme caution. We cannot correct errors in judgment about climate with another vote.

FRED SCHLISSEL, WOODMERE, N.Y.

To the Editor:

Bret Stephens is right that there is some uncertainty about how bad unchecked climate change will be. However, that uncertainty cuts both ways. Scientists have been explicit that there is a small chance that global warming and its impacts will be less severe than their best estimates. However, they also report that there is a good chance that the impacts of unbridled carbon pollution will be much, much worse than their best estimates.

Proper risk management calls for looking at both sides of the uncertainty equation.

HUNTER CUTTING, SAN FRANCISCO