The thing is a lot of these research are building up on one another and tend to have many many assumptions. When you actually take a look at them you realise they have large margin of error which is the standard for prevision and forcast multiple decades in the future. The problem with those margin of error is that they are so gigantic that you cannot scientifically conclude anything. You can say the margin of error seem to be moving into a trend over time, but mathematically speaking you could be making a type 1 error by rejecting a true null hypothesis so theses ''studies'' are causing a clash with the scientific method.

What the pro climat change argue and they might likely be correct, altought it isn't a certainty, is that the worst case senario in these margin of error keeps happening years after years. Which as a strawman argument is quite convincing, but a margin of error is still a margin of error and history has proven many time that the past correlation don't nesserserly hold for the future.

So doing a forecast on climate change for 100 years is really at the complete opposite of what any reasonable scientis would do and is more of a mediatic show off than anything else.

Again, I'll just end this by mentionning that I believe in climate change, but that I think the main issue is overpopulation which the green media tend to simply forget. The population is growing exponentially and with each individual, their needs is following and it's not by dooming your own economy that a country will ever achieve to end climate change because they won't be adressing the main issue which is over population.

So, yes, you are correct, one is credible and the other isn't, but it's not that simple. It never is that simple.