Science is models of reality. As we gain more understanding we increase the precision of our models. When we do the previous models don't become invalid, like N

Science is models of reality. As we gain more understanding we increase the precision of our models. When we do the previous models don't become invalid, like Newton's laws of motions are not invalid because of quantum physics, indeed they are considered an approximation to it. The same goes for climate science, our models are increasing in precision. The social pressure is however in the opposite direction than you think. Nobody wants to be seen as crazy, and there is a pressure from the institutions to tone it down. Often the most conservative models are presented as plausible, selected by how actionable they are. Even the plausible models are unpleasant, not because scientists are crazy, but because the situation is that bad, and potentially much worst. Whether it's fixable, or can only be mitigated, or we can only try to adapt, it doesn't matter because we are not doing any of it. We are banking in everything turning out just fine, even if we continue pumping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere indiscriminately. This behavior is a suicidal one. What social pressure would exist to deal with the problem head-on anyway, we don't work like that. The real power is not being dogmatically sceptical, it's evaluation. Thinking about things and their relationships. There is a difference between poking holes, and throwing the whole tapestry away for the sake of being sceptical.