In the context of climate science, why does expertise correlate with malfeasance for skeptics?

Climate skeptics disparage anything remotely resembling professional expertise in the subject, preferring to believe a hodge-podge of unsupported beliefs generated by people with no real credentials. An example is the question posed concerning peer-review, where a simple statement describing what peer-review is designed to do (identify errors) and what it has extreme difficulty identifying (intentional fraud) was met with insults and ad hominem attacks. From that response, and many others here, it seems as if an actual editor from Journal of Geophysical Research, or some other mainstream scientific publication responded, their opinion and statements would be similarly discounted. Why do skeptics have such a hard time with expert opinions in this subject area? Is it simply that the people with real expertise tell them things they do not want to hear?