Considering was called Greenland by the Vikings who also named Nova Scotia "Vinland" because grape vines grew there, would it be more likely to you that some alarmist scientists would defends their jobs and salaries by giving overperssimistic claims, and that the rest would have to follow the game or become irrelevant in the publish-or-perish world?

Just like a lemon market, except driven by fear?

I remember reading somewhere (Richard Feymann maybe?) about the initial mass or charge of some particle, an electron maybe, being far away from the truth and leading to a suppression of the publication of any "dissident" results - including a much better estimate that followed.

The scientific process took care of that by publishing revised estimates, just slightly lower and lower, until the number reached the initially conflicting estimation, but this took some time.

I do not claim to have any opinion on climate change - except to notice that a side is giving alarmist claims, which can not be disproved, or when they can and are, which are adjusted by an ad-hoc theory. From global freezing in the 70s to global warming, and now "climate change". And that the other side is giving different results and seems to be more cautious in its process, because it is facing an uphill battle like anyone who would have published a significantly lower mass.

That does not win merit points with what I know about epistemology.