The trend is clear but the miss on the magnitude seems significant if it's the person making the prediction is asking for trust and billions of dollars.
Also don't misinterpret a range. It doesn't say "5-7 degrees", it says "1-7 degrees" covering a best-case and worst-case scenario. It's not less credible just because the worst case is so bad.
> The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown.
This at least implies (though doesn’t confirm) that the ‘worst-case scenarios’ from the less-conservative predictions were higher than 7 degrees in 30 years.
Here higher tempretures are the pessimistic worse case predictions.
Another person mentioning that these are Farenheit units, makes it clear. There were publications in the 80s predicting much higher numbers and shorter timelines.
Lower tempreture rises were conservative estimates based on "preserving the current levels of CO2" emissions.
I am indeed one of the "another person"s that mentioned these are F units.
"Conservative" in this context relates to the method, not the outcome. You're still ignoring the range-characteristic of the outcome and talk like it was "5-7" degrees.
This is how I think most climate activists think, that even if they exagerate, it's all good, we just over prepare or over-correct.
Also, it's not a way how "climate activists think". It's called "Preparedness paradox" [1] and has been well researched, e.g. with flood disasters and their countermeasures.