Guest Post by Scott Adams
Before I start, let me say as clearly as possible that I agree with the scientific consensus on climate change. If science says something is true – according to most scientists, and consistent with the scientific method – I accept their verdict.
I realize that science can change its mind, of course. Saying something is “true” in a scientific sense always leaves open the option of later reassessing that view if new evidence comes to light. Something can be “true” according to science while simultaneously being completely wrong. Science allows that odd situation to exist, at least temporarily, while we crawl toward truth.
So when I say I agree with the scientific consensus on climate change, I’m endorsing the scientific consensus for the same reason I endorsed Hillary Clinton for the first part of the election – as a strategy to protect myself. I endorse the scientific consensus on climate change to protect my career and reputation. To do otherwise would be dumb, at least in my situation.
As regular readers of this blog already know, human brains did not evolve to understand reality in any deep way. If some of us survive and procreate, that’s good enough for evolution. It doesn’t matter that you live in a movie that says you will reincarnate after you die, while I live in a movie that says reality is a software simulation, and perhaps our mutual friend lives in a movie in which his prophet flew to heaven on a winged horse. Those are very different realities, but it doesn’t stop any of us from procreating. This lesson about the subjective nature of reality is one we learned from watching Trump’s march to the election. As the world looked on, everything they thought they understood about Trump’s chances dissolved in front of them. And yet the world still worked fine.
This perceptual change in humanity is happening as I predicted it would a year before Trump won. I told you he would change more than politics. I said he would open a crack in reality so you could view it through a new filter. That transformation is well underway. I’ll widen the crack a bit more today.
If you have been involved in any climate change debates online or in person, you know they always take the following trajectory: Climate science believers state that all the evidence, and 98% of scientists, are on the same side. Then skeptics provide links to credible-sounding articles that say the science is bunk, and why. How the heck can you – a non-expert – judge who is right?
You probably are not a scientist, and that means you can’t independently evaluate any of the climate science claims. You didn’t do the data collection or the experiments yourself. You could try to assess the credibility of the scientists using your common sense and experience, but let’s face it – you aren’t good at that. So what do you do?
You probably default to trusting whatever the majority of scientists tell you. And the majority says climate science is real and we need to do something about it. But how reliable are experts, even when they are mostly on the same side?
Ask the majority of polling experts who said Trump had only a 2% chance of becoming president. Ask the experts who said the government’s historical “food pyramid” was good science. Ask the experts who used to say marijuana was a gateway drug. Ask the experts who used to say sexual orientation is just a choice. Ask the experts who said alcoholism is a moral failure and not a matter of genetics.
There are plenty of examples where the majority of experts were wrong. What you really want to know is whether climate change looks more like the sort of thing that turns out to be right or the sort of thing that turns out to be wrong. Let’s dig into that question.
It seems to me that a majority of experts could be wrong whenever you have a pattern that looks like this:
1. A theory has been “adjusted” in the past to maintain the conclusion even though the data has changed. For example, “Global warming” evolved to “climate change” because the models didn’t show universal warming.
2. Prediction models are complicated. When things are complicated you have more room for error. Climate science models are complicated.
3. The models require human judgement to decide how variables should be treated. This allows humans to “tune” the output to a desired end. This is the case with climate science models.
4. There is a severe social or economic penalty for having the “wrong” opinion in the field. As I already said, I agree with the consensus of climate scientists because saying otherwise in public would be social and career suicide for me even as a cartoonist. Imagine how much worse the pressure would be if science was my career.
5. There are so many variables that can be measured – and so many that can be ignored – that you can produce any result you want by choosing what to measure and what to ignore. Our measurement sensors do not cover all locations on earth, from the upper atmosphere to the bottom of the ocean, so we have the option to use the measurements that fit our predictions while discounting the rest.
6. The argument from the other side looks disturbingly credible.
One of the things that always fascinated me about jury trials is that attorneys from both sides can sound so convincing even though the evidence points in only one direction. A defendant is either guilty or innocent, but good lawyers can make you see it either way. Climate science is similar. I’ve seen airtight arguments that say climate science is solid and true, and I’ve seen equally credible-looking arguments that say it is bunk. From my non-scientist perspective, I can’t tell the difference. Both sides look convincing to me.
As I have described in this blog before, I’m a trained hypnotist and I have studied the methods of persuasion for years. That gives me a bit of context that is different from the norm. In my experience, and based on my training, it is normal and routine for the “majority of experts” to be completely wrong about important stuff. But in the two-dimensional world where persuasion isn’t much of a thing, it probably looks to most of you that experts are usually right, especially when they are overwhelmingly on the same side and there is a mountain of confirming evidence.
We like to think we arrived at our decisions about climate science by using our common sense and good judgement to evaluate the credibility of experts. Some of you think you have superior sources of information as well. But both sides are wrong. No one is using reason, facts, or common sense to arrive at a decision about climate science. Here’s what you are using to arrive at your decision:
1. Fear
2. Unwarranted trust in experts
3. Pattern recognition
On the question of fear, if you believe that experts are good at predicting future doom, you are probably scared to death by climate change. But in my experience, any danger we humans see coming far in the future we always find a way to fix. We didn’t run out of food because of population growth. We didn’t run out of oil as predicted. We didn’t have a problem with the Year 2000 bug, and so on. I refer to this phenomenon as the Adams Law of Slow-Moving Disasters. When we see a disaster coming – as we do with climate science – we have an unbroken track record of avoiding doom. In the case of climate change danger, there are a number of technologies under development that can directly scrub the atmosphere if needed.
On the question of trusting experts, my frame of reference is the field of influence and persuasion. From my point of view – and given the examples of mass delusion that I have personally witnessed (including Trump’s election), I see experts as far less credible than most people assume.
And when it comes to pattern recognition, I see the climate science skeptics within the scientific community as being similar to Shy Trump Supporters. The fact that a majority of scientists agree with climate science either means the evidence is one-sided or the social/economic pressures are high. And as we can plainly see, the cost of disagreeing with climate science is unreasonably high if you are a scientist.
While it is true that a scientist can become famous and make a big difference by bucking conventional wisdom and proving a new theory, anything short of total certainty would make that a suicide mission. And climate science doesn’t provide the option of total certainty.
To put it another way, it would be easy for a physicist to buck the majority by showing that her math worked. Math is math. But if your science depends on human judgement to decide which measurements to include and which ones to “tune,” you don’t have that option. Being a rebel theoretical physicist is relatively easy if your numbers add up. But being a rebel climate scientist is just plain stupid. So don’t expect to see many of the latter. Scientists can often be wrong, but rarely are they stupid.
To strengthen my point today, and in celebration of my reopening of the blog commenting section, please provide your links to pro and con arguments about climate science. This might be the only place in the world you will see links to both sides. If you want to be amazed, see how persuasive BOTH sides of this debate are.
As I said above, I accept the consensus of climate science experts when they say that climate science is real and accurate. But I do that to protect my reputation and my income. I have no way to evaluate the work of scientists.
If you ask me how scared I am of climate changes ruining the planet, I have to say it is near the bottom of my worries. If science is right, and the danger is real, we’ll find ways to scrub the atmosphere as needed. We always find ways to avoid slow-moving dangers. And if the risk of climate change isn’t real, I will say I knew it all along because climate science matches all of the criteria for a mass hallucination by experts.
It walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.
Climatism is simply renamed worship of Gaia, an offshoot of the modern religion of Progressivism.
Progressivism has its dogma (!Science! is the source of all knowledge, All people are identical under the skin, and if the former conflicts with the latter, ignore the former), its mortal sins (racism, sexism, homo- and trans-phobia, and climate-denial) and it has priests, scribes and cultist-level zealots.
Not all religions have gods (ex: most East Asian “religions.”)
PS: “Consensus” has nothing to do with science. Science, properly understood, is the OVERTURNING of consensus via theory, test and data acquisition.
The climate of a planet is orders of magnitude too complex to be modeled in a computer. I ran into the same FUCKING stupidity 32 years ago when I worked in a physiology lab doing basic research using animal models. Congress was hell bent on prohibiting the use of animals in laboratory science, and the FUCKING morons pushing it were all in favor of substituting “COMPUTER MODELS” for the animals.
It never seemed to occur to those dumb fucks that only what you KNOW, or in some cases GUESS or ASSUME, can be programmed into a model. Actual new knowledge, by definition CANNOT EMERGE from a computer model.
It never ceases to amaze me how unimaginably stupid are most people, including those with IQ’s measured at above 140.
You gotta hand it to Scott Adams. The man is fearless. He will wander into a barnyard full of of manure, regardless of the consequences.
For a guy who lives in the Bay Area, to speak truth they way he does, he is lucky to still be alive.
I always believe scientists with a well documented history of falsifying data, too. To do otherwise might be politically incorrect – which, of course, is the very worst kind of incorrectness.
The new scientific method:
1) Determine desired conclusions.
2) Develop hypothesis.
3) Experimentally test hypothesis.
4) Alter experimental data to support hypothesis and desired conclusions.
5) Cash that check from Al Gore, or his functional equivalent.
6) Call people that criticize your methodology vile names.
7) Repeat as often as possible.
AC….like a lot; a new way of looking at the corruption of the Scientific Method.
Absolutely… the bastardization of empirical methodology & the lack of ethics in research will be the historical theme of our place in the history of science.
I did a brief review of the climate data a few years ago and came to a few conclusions.
#1 Yes, the overall temperature of the planet is warming.
#2 The increased CO2 in the atmosphere increases food production.
#3 Overall, a warmer planet is better overall with two exceptions (If you live near the ocean or you live in really hot place already)
#4 A big reason, but not the only one, for the whole climate issue is that it is really, really good for Russia. There is a huge amount of land that is unusable due to cold weather. Warm that area up a bit and Russia has the potential to be become a massive superpower.
Even if St Petersburg , Russia were to become as pleasant, weather wise, as St Petersburg , Florida it’s not going to take place on human timescales. We know climates change but it occurs slowly to us. 500 years is forever in human terms so forget about your geopolitical theory of climate change. A 1/10 percent difference in annual population and or economic growth rates over a century matters more in the affairs of nations than anything the ‘weather’ is going to throw our way.
THE WORLD AGENDA:
“But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy…One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy any more.”
Ottmar Edenhofer, Co-chair of IPCC WG III, New American, Nov. 19, 2010
___________
“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history”.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”
Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, At a news conference 02/10/2015, in Brussels
__________
White House Office of Science and Technology Director John P. Holdren told CNSNews.com that he would use the “free market economy” to implement the “massive campaign” he advocated along with Population Bomb author Paul Ehrlich to “de-develop the United States.”
John P. Holdren Video Interview 09/2010
____________
“isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Maurice Strong, billionaire bureaucrat that had major influence in UN. He conceived the masterful plan to gain control of most of the worlds energy resources through a pseudo scientific United Nations bureau which he named The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC.
(Mr. Strong and his colleagues at The United Nations and The Club of Rome have determined that Capitalism has created an unsustainable, and unjust society, over populated, and environmentally destructive. They mean to de-industrialize, de-populate, and bring civilization under control of a One-World Government centered within The United Nations.)
___________
“The emerging ‘environmentalization’ of our civilization and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global community will inevitably have multiple political consequences. Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must. Mikhail Gorbachev, communist and former leader of U.S.S.R.:
_____________________
in reference to Al Gore and his loony friends at the Rio, “The objective, clearly enunciated by the leaders of UNCED, is to bring about a change in the present system of independent nations. The future is to be World Government with central planning by the United Nations. Fear of environmental crises – whether real or not – is expected to lead to – compliance. If force is needed, it will be provided by a U.N. green-helmeted police force, already authorized by the Security Council.”
Dixy Lee Ray, a scientist and former governor of the State of Washington, U.S, from her book Environmental Overkill.
_____________
“The Clean Power Plan (CPP) has been falsely sold as impactful environmental regulation when it is really an attempt by our primary federal environmental regulator to take over state and federal regulation of energy.”
“The CPP reduces the amount of anthropogenic CO2 globally by 0.2%, less than 1 ppm. That global temperature rise would decrease by .01 degree F and the resulting sea level rise reduction would be 1/100th of an inch.”
Charles McConnell, former Assistant Energy Secretary under Obama, at a Congressional Hearing on May 27, 2016
It is sadly hilarious that someone “down thumbed” your post. This is the power of the Climate Agenda Indoctrination–you did nothing except quote, WITH CERTIFICATION/references and links of true, factual quotes made by climate profiteers.
You added no opinion, remark or even a single personal word–yet someone voted down what you were saying–( plugs fingers in ears and squawks NAH NAH NAHH–I can’t hear you”)
From grade school through college–on every TV show, cartoon and by all of their TV and music idols they are taught to accept as fact bad science and refuse to even discuss ( let alone use critical thinking) the possibility that the “science” is wrong or made up.
thanx javelin, although it is possible a Fat Finger could have hit the wrong hand AND that one does not know that you could click on the other hand to correct the error.
I did it – once.
Dixy Lee Ray’s book is great.She debunked much of the environmental bs & that was in the 90s.
She’s dead now but I wish she were here to update the book.It was “readable” science.
If you copy the title below you will come upon the PDF of Wm. M. Gray. He just passed this year and was a scientist on this topic for decades. Excellent read.
“The Physical Flaws of the Global Warming Theory
and Deep Ocean Circulation Changes as the Primary Climate Driver ”
by
William M. Gray
Professor Emeritus
Department of Atmospheric Science
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
Isn’t that Wm Gray,former director of the Natl Hurricane Center?Hardly a man with no credibility.
Good info.
A warmer planet is a very good thing…. historically, earth has been in a cycle of ice ages for the last several million years, and it is profoundly colder and plants are “starved” for CO2. A doubling of CO2 would quadruple (or more) plant growth, which is very beneficial. The warm-o-phobic crowd has it all backwards.
Yes, he was. Very credible I think. I try to find info on climate that is based on people who are devoted to the subject and he was one of them.
Form a theory.
Look for evidence to support it.
Reject all evidence that does not support it.
Ridicule any evidence that proves it wrong.
Claim the theory is now proven true.
This is science.
I don’t trust a word these ” scientist, experts or so called professionals ” say any more.I put them in the same company as tv news pundits.Most are getting paid to lie.
“#4 A big reason, but not the only one, for the whole climate issue is that it is really, really good for Russia. There is a huge amount of land that is unusable due to cold weather. Warm that area up a bit and Russia has the potential to be become a massive superpower.” ———– General
Are you sure it would be good for Russia? Or, anyone?
There are millions of tons of methane (twice as damaging as CO2) buried in the arctic permafrost. It would be very bad it it were released into the atmosphere.
Bubbling ground!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06Xc3LtZRWo
http://siberiantimes.com/ecology/casestudy/news/n0681-now-the-proof-permafrost-bubbles-are-leaking-methane-200-times-above-the-norm/
Neither CO2 nor methane damage the atmosphere. CO2 is an intrinsic part of the atmosphere and methane degrades to CO2 and water after combining with oxygen.
Yep-seen that myself. One of the fun games during a Fairbanks winter is to look for bubbles under the ice of a frozen pond. Drill a hole, light it up and watch the methane flare! Pretty cool.
Re Scott’s OP-Like it or not, Alaskan winters are a lot warmer than they were 20-30 years ago. Last year was first winter on record where Fairbanks didn’t hit -30F. Used to be EVERY winter hit at least -40. Cold here now (by recent standards) but would be ordinary to warm for this time of year in the ’80s. And ’70s were colder still (before the PDO flipped in ’76).
“The fact that a majority of scientists agree with climate science…”, and “If science says something is true – according to most scientists, and consistent with the scientific method – I accept their verdict.”
Scott – if you bothered to obtain the studies that claim the 97 or 98 % consensus and then accomplish an investigative read of same, you would realize the claim is complete hogwash.
Also, IPCC does NOT follow the Scientific Method; see AC comment above.
Hell, yeah.
I was gonna post that I AGREE with the scientific consensus, i.e., “Climate Change” “science” is BULLSHIT.
Most scientists get it.
Call me a doubting Thomas, but I eschew much of the “science” and tend to go with what I see. There’s something going on with the Earth. Look at the weather patterns, and how they’re changing. I live in a desert area. It’s been so hot and so dry, that the CACTUS are dying.
Is it man-made or natural? Who knows. There have been climate fluctuations in the past. That being said, there have NEVER been as many humans on Earth before. Those humans have never had the influence on nature they do now. The climate is wobbling. The Earth is doing its best to balance itself out, regardless of the cause of the disturbance. Our continued existence isn’t required to achieve this balance. If we ARE the cause, we’ll know soon enough…
Look up the supposed conspiracy theory called Chemtrails and HAARP!
The academic term is “geo-engineering” which is well past the development of science fiction!
HAARP: Documentary: Angels Don’t Play This Haarp
Desert Southwest?
There was a National Geographic article some 7-8 years ago that indicated that the climate the last 100 years in the US Southwest has been an anomaly and that the dryer weather was just reverting back to the mean…
The western US is in a historic drought.There have been some reprieves like last winter’s el nino but the trend is still dry.
Tampa…the geologic record shows that the last 100 years in the U.S. have been WET compared to the last 1000 years. There have been wet and dry periods in the past record and none of it was caused by humans.
“…we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
– IPCC TAR Chap 14, Exec Summary
So say the bureaucrats in charge, and after billions spent, what’s the point you say? Plausible cause for more globalism to “save the planet from ourselves” that requires even more central control and, lets not forget, a means to fund this control via a carbon tax.
Science is the new religion!
Whatever happened to Climategate? This faux consensus is nauseating and yet people eat it up!
If he has no way to evaluate the work of science on this issue, why does he offer any opinion at all? I guess saying “I don’t know,” while true, lacks persuasiveness. I’m getting tired of this guy.
He says it all in the 2nd sentence: “and consistent with the scientific method.” Anyone who has made it through an introductory 8th grade science class will tell you the “Climate Science cartel” ditched the scientific method decades ago.
“Neither CO2 nor methane damage the atmosphere. CO2 is an intrinsic part of the atmosphere and methane degrades to CO2 and water after combining with oxygen.” ———- General
I no longer give a flying fuk about climate change debates.
I just wanted to stop by and say that your “no damage” statement is, well, …… disingenuous.
Suppose the atmosphere was 100 PER CENT methane. How would that work out? At that point it would be dangerous, right? OK, how about 99%? Still dangerous, right? So, we keep going backwards until it is not dangerous …. the DAMN (Danger Alleviated Methane Number). Do you know what the DAMN number is?
A more honest statement would be — “Methane is not dangerous at its current levels in the atmosphere.”
Couple things I discovered while g**gling;
— there’s about 80 Billion tons of methane trapped just in the Siberian permafrost.
— there are more methane molecules trapped inside the earth than there are carbon molecules in the atmosphere
— a single methane molecule will warm the planet about 80-100 times as as much as a single molecule of CO2
I’m guessing that if large amounts of methane were quickly released into the atmosphere that the DAMN number threshold will be crossed. So much for not being dangerous … but, I’ll surely be Worm Food by then so, I don’t give a fuck.
The earth’s atmosphere is 5.5 quadrillion metric tons or 5,500,000,000,000,000……if 80 billion metric tons of methane were released into the atmosphere that would be an increase of 1 part methane increase for every 68,750th metric to of atmosphere.
OR a .0000145% increase in methane in the overall total atmospheric volume…………..
Its a basic fact that one methane molecule combines with three oxygen molecules over time to make one molecule of CO2 and two molecules of water. Methane concentration will never be high enough in the atmosphere to be dangerous, maybe locally if you were standing next to a flare. CO2 isn’t dangerous until its concentration reaches ridiculously high concentrations well beyond anything currently foreseeable. Similar to the fact that water isn’t dangerous, unless you are drowning.
Obviously, there are people with agendas trying to use climate to further their goals, so its completely reasonable to be skeptical.
Maybe the climate is changing. It has in the past, many times.
If it is changing, is man causing the change?
If so, who changed the climate in the past?
My sense is that scientists support the claim because that is where the money is now and that is where the money will be when the big pot of wealth transfer is built to solve climate change.
That big pot of money will be the most wasted pot of money that could ever be concocted.
It will be like the Clinton Foundation where less than 5% actually goes to the cause that it was set up for.
Another question Betty–assume the liars & nut jobs who believe this are correct.
Can man change it back?
And btw,I have an Aunt Betty I haven’t seen for a couple of years–this is not you identifying as a man now is it?
I doubt man is creating climate change, but I am all for reducing pollution where possible. Just spend the money directly on that issue and stop funding idiots talking about climate change. That would be the course I could support because at least it puts the money where the issue is purported to be.
Sorry, not your lost aunt.
LOL, he may wish he hadn’t opened-up the comments… there are already over 2700 posts! What a crapstorm… he could have just come here and learned all he needs to know 🙂
I’ll keep this simple:
I’ve learned in life not to trust liars; especially when it comes to the money issue. Purposeful deception = a lie and the Warmists have given tons of purposeful deception. Read ClimateGate – these aren’t the ‘scientists’ of Einstein and Salk and Curie fame.
And refusing requests for their coding, and then refusing FOIA requests, and then after the court finally says to give up the coding, CRU says we lost the material.
There is NO empirical evidence that CO2 has caused any appreciable warming beyond any Natural Warming that is expected after the end of the LIA.
“Ask the experts who used to say marijuana was a gateway drug.”
—-Scott Adams in his article
Well, 80% of hard drug users started with Mary Jane. Quantifiable over decades of research by PRIVATE, not government, sources. It’s not science, folks, but it is a statistic that should get your attention.
That said, climate science is an absolute disgrace to the scientific community.
SSS says:
December 6, 2016 at 6:47 pm
“Ask the experts who used to say marijuana was a gateway drug.”
—-Scott Adams in his article
Well, 80% of hard drug users started with Mary Jane. Quantifiable over decades of research by PRIVATE, not government, sources. It’s not science, folks, but it is a statistic that should get your attention
_________________________
My buddy, SSS says:
December 6, 2016 at 6:47 pm
“Ask the experts who used to say marijuana was a gateway drug.”
—-Scott Adams in his article
Well, 80% of hard drug users started with Mary Jane. Quantifiable over decades of research by PRIVATE, not government, sources. It’s not science, folks, but it is a statistic that should get your attention.
__________________________
Yes, this makes perfect sense. Well that is until we continue with that logic, then we get to the drug that preceded Marijuana, which for most users was Alcohol. Before Alcohol was tobacco and before that when just a wee little lad, there was aspirin. So there you have it. Aspirin is the gateway drug before all others.
Unfortunately,most science has been corrupted today,either for $ or for an outcome the scientist/researcher wants or believes,which is probably the case with the pot study.
I read an article once which claimed that cigarette smoking & the age at which it started was one of the determiners of drug use.True,who knows?
How many people on this list drink alcohol?I would bet that almost none of them started off with liquor,they started with beer or wine.Are they gateway drinks?
It is embarrassing how many people here didn’t read the article and just knee jerked at the first paragraph.
We have seen all the models fail to predict the prior declines and the current stability of the last 18 years. The last year of warm was caused by the El Nino, which is gone and Temps plummeted 1c the last month. The sun is going to sleep so in the next 5 years we will know if co2 or the sun are the real drivers of climate. I vote the sun as there are numerous influences from solar that are affecting all the other planets in the solar system.
Bb is right. Follow the money.
You dont have to be an expert to understand the tragedy of the commons. If group C restricts its own industrio-economic activity due to some vague fear of climate change, while group D increases its industrio-economic activity because they have no such fears, then group D is going to eventually crush and eliminate group C. For that reason alone, dont be in group C. Our world is ruled by child raping satanists who want to exterminate 90% of the planet, so there is no shortage of funding to convince people to join group C. And that is why there is a so called concensus on global warming. They want a carbon tax that everyone has to pay just to be alive. Pay to the banksters, I might add.
“Global Warming Or Global Governance”, one of the best docs ever done on the issue.
I used to take it for granted that the “consensus” was real, but actually it is fake. The 97% thing is from a survey which should have produced a 100% result – two simple questions to which they answers are yes, but which don’t actually prove that alarm is justified or necessary. I have heard from many people who used to be alarmists and are now realists, but no-one who has moved the other way.
The most telling thing is that if you attend to the debate for any length of time you will discover that it is the realists who are interested in facts and detailed arguments and the alarmists who rely on emotion, propaganda techniques, and intimidation. That is to say the advocates of alarmism, including those who are scientists, do not behave like scientists, but like zealous preachers.