To my knowledge yes, “we” did. Actual measurements have turned out to be on the pessimistic end of the spectrum of predictions or beyond consistently. The first IPCC report that got really into doomerism was the one from 2021, that was supposedly leaked for fear of political censorship:
IPCC steps up warning on climate tipping points in leaked draft report
Scientist for the first twenty years of my life:
We are destroying the only ecosystem supporting human life, it’s going to start being really bad in a hundred years.
Scientists for the last ten years of my life:
Haha, we might have been a bit optimistic on that estimate, this new data looks really bad. Oops.
Anti-doomers the whole time:
Hey don’t be alarmist, you will just make the public apathetic and nothing will get done.
The public:
The fuck are these fucking idiots sitting in the god-damn road for? I gotta get to work, move it!
Politicians:
*doing nothing*
liveuamap.com reports there was a second plane owned by Prigozhin in the air, so my conspiracy theory is he got wind of the impending assassination, swapped the passenger lists, and will be announcing his “March of Justice” 2.0 shortly.
I meant scientists did too. They thought it would take way longer to turn bad than it actually did, at least most of them thought so. Would probably be interesting to do a meta-study on how much the corridor of estimates narrowed or widened in the IPCC reports over the years, and in which general direction they trended.