Again, that's why you take everything you can and come to a conclusion based on the likelihood of the arguments presented.
https://www.ft.com/content/68c61094-3870-11e6-a780-b48ed7b6126f
When you have so many institutions suggesting one outcome, you have to have pretty strong reasons to go against the grain, otherwise you're arguing the contrary without applying logic.
When you have this statement...
... then you have to look at
why they're coming to that outcome and deem whether it's a reasonable conclusion. To me, their conclusions are extremely reasonable, to the point where I do honestly equate anyone dismissing it as akin to denying climate change at this point. Yes, they aren't concrete stats, and perhaps none of those models will play out, but the direction of traffic will almost certainly be largely the same on this one at the end of it.