What is an alarmist?
The mainstream narrative is not the science - you are supposed to be a scientist.
That's my point. Most people follow what the mainstream and social media say, which is a massive exaggeration of the science, and the science itself is biased to the alarmist side, because the most alarmist stuff which can be justified as qualifying is science is what gets the most funding. Think about it - if climate science was sitting around saying 'no problem, nothing interesting, don't worry about it', it would get less funding. If it says 'Oh my god, the world is headed for apocalypse!' it will get more attention and funding. Even if you think the science is pure science and unadulterated by the bias (which apparently you do), you can't deny that bias exists, and it's a huge leap of faith to say it completely resists that bias.
You could call anyone who pushes or believes an exaggerated version of the issue an alarmist. Obviously it comes in varying degrees.
In most peoples' minds, there are two camps. The alarmists see themselves as correct, and anyone who doesn't unconditionally believe the most extreme version of the narrative is a denier, who they believe believes no climate change exists or humans are having zero impact on climate change. And I suppose most deniers do fit that image. Anyone in between, even if like me they totally acknowledge that climate change is real and that humans are having in influence on it, are seen as crazy by most people. When people get so irrationally polarised, both sides see anyone in the middle as belonging to the opposite side. Same deal with left/right. I'm actually a bit to the left but the vast majority of people on the left see me as alt right. Modern communication promotes echo chambers which makes people's views extreme and polarised, and anyone thinking rationally and not taking part in echo chamber mentality is seen as being an extremist on the opposite side.
And when it comes to scientific illiteracy, your comments have been proven to be false on many occasions in this thread.
So false are your claims that you say you agree with the scientists on many points, but you don't even understand why GHGs are the most important issue requiring action be taken.
I'm completely familiar with the arguments, but what can clearly be seen if you look at the data without bias or scientific illiteracy and faith, is that we don't have the data required to be as sure as the published science suggests, and the mainstream narrative doesn't just believe it but hugely exaggerates it. For everyone pushing the narrative there is huge financial incentive (the climate scientists themselves for funding, as described above, and the governments and media (because they're funded by political interest) to create taxes, stifle competitors, and distract from other environmental issues).
Exactly what is it that you agree with regarding the science on climate change, seeing you have got just about everything wrong?
You're asking for a massive answer there. If I was to post everything I agree with I'd need to write a book.
If you want to address specific points we can do that, but to ask for an all encompassing response like that is silly. Some of the specific things which I disagree with most laymen on and agree with the climate scientists on are the history of the climate (over the last few hundred million years) and the fact that the current climate is not exceeding natural limits in terms of rate of change or extremity. The climate scientists' words are often twisted and misrepresented. Most people believe that the climate is changing more rapidly than ever before (utterly, utterly untrue, and climate scientists don't believe this) and that the world is now hotter than ever (utterly, utterly untrue, and again, no climate scientist will make this claim). However, the mainstream narrative pushes both of these beliefs.
The one big point I disagree with climate scientists on is how important CO2 is. This is more of a shades of grey issue than a black and white one. Obviously CO2 is a greenhouse gas (not by any means the most important one) and obviously the greenhouse effect is extremely important to our climate. Yes, more CO2 will increase the temperature. Most people have difficulty seeing that it's possible to disagree 100% without disagreeing 100%, and in their minds they imagine that since I recognise that the situation is exaggerated somewhat, I must completely disagree, and then they attack me accordingly. Since we absolutely know there is a heap of bias in terms of the CO2 narrative from everyone reporting it, it almost certainly indicates that the mainstream narrative is going to be an exaggeration. It's incredibly naive to believe that with all that bias we are going to end up with a mainstream narrative (or even just a scientific consensus) which is spot on. Look at science throughout the whole history of science and you'll see problems with bias. It's strange if you think this is the first time bias has not altered the message. We actually have very little data to work with. Literally billions of years of climate history exists but we don't have accurate records of it, and we only have a few decades of reliable records. But, we do know that the climate has violently fluctuated throughout the entire time, often without CO2 fluctuations. We don't understand the climate system very well (some climate scientists acknowledge this, others try to pretend otherwise, and of course they are biased towards saying they know what's going on so that we'll take them more seriously so that we'll give them more money and attention, and when there's a clear bias and divided opinion, with any group or any issue, you can be fairly sure that the truth is closer to the unbiased opinions).
Most people will read that and just come away with the completely incorrect summary of "Sdaji doesn't believe climate scientists at all and thinks CO2 is a lie and he doesn't understand how the greenhouse effect works and believes Trump and is a climate denier and doesn't think climate change is real" - absolutely none of which is the case. It's a difficult conversation to have, because every step of the way people make completely incorrect assumptions like this, and then I have to try to carry on the conversation while I'm talking to people who have that completely incorrect view of the situation. With most people, anything other than blindly going along with the mainstream narrative and also believing that the climate scientists agree with it means that everyone will think you're a crazy 100% climate change denier and scientifically illiterate (very ironic!).
So, I've barely skimmed the surface and it's already a longer post than it should be, which is why I can't really answer your whole question.