Oh absolutely. Environmental scientists are very conservative and anti-alarmist with their predictions, and every successive generation of derived data skews towards the more conservative end.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-science-p...
The climate change "hype" comes from journalists and editors. The actual research papers are generally very conservative in their estimations, and we've been exceeding the predicted outcomes for decades without making any real changes to improve our situation.
As an analogy - Imagine I told you that if you ate an extra 3000 calories of junk food every day you'd gain a lot of weight. You disagree, for whatever reason, and we carry out the experiment. If a journalist wrote an article on our experiment, and their editor titled it "Ajmurmann about to be 100kg heavier!", when would we be able to tell if they are correct or not? You might be able to make it a week while still being within normal weight fluctuations, but two weeks? Three weeks? A year? And when would we be able to determine the "correctness" of the 100kg number?
Comparing that situation to the Earth's climate - We're still in the first month of the experiment, and shoveling junk food into our metaphorical mouths as fast we can.
Most scientists can still have historically been overly conservative even if you can find a few that made over the top predictions. It should be perfectly obvious that the presence of a few outliers doesn't invalidate the median of the sample.
I am trying to understand if there is some chance that this estimate could perhaps be an outlier.
For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#/media/File:Pee...
How can I know whether this prediction will end up being one of the blue line or one of the red line.