Interesting I was going to say the reverse: a large segment of the climate alarmists are making arguments in bad faith. They hype a presumed crisis far beyond what the data supports and dramatically overstate the degree of scientific consensus. The crisis is the justification for imposing drastic economic mechanisms and government controls which are the real hidden agenda. The climate crisis is only the latest in a long series of apocalyptic disasters, and is not really as compelling as previous ones.
Further they deliberately conflate the science with the policy. Science may have predictions of sea level rise, but Science does not say the Paris Climate accord is or is not a good idea. I have heard climate alarmists make that argument: it’s clearly either wrong or in bad faith.
For the record, climate is changing and has been doing so for 4 billion years. Ten thousand years ago we were coming out of an ice age and the sea rose 50 meters or more. All that before a single gallon of gas was burned. I argue a policy promoting minimally disruptive adjustments based on market mechanisms makes much more sense than wrenching dislocations focused on a dubious CO2 reduction strategy. And that’s not bad faith argument.