I can't remember where I read it, but there are many examples in the history of science where a recognized "great mind" really did have insight into breakthrough knowledge, but the data available didn't always agree with what he or she knew had to be the nature of nature. Sometimes this knowledge resulted in "adjustments" to the data by the "great mind". (Sometimes it turned out later that the adjustments made ad hoc were found to be due to an instrumental or bias error not immediately perceptible; the "great mind" knew that this must be the case but couldn't prove it at the time, but the adjustments made to prove the point (or publish the paper) turned out to be exactly what was required).
Two sort-of like this examples: Gregor Mendel and Einstein's cosmological constant.
Which gets back to what I quoted. That confidence comes from knowledge, not just data. Sometimes such confidence is misplaced. But I respect the minds of those who are investigating the way the world's climate works.
Wegner and continental drift comes to mind.
However, plate tectonics was not subsequently proven by computer models, but hard science from the field.
Whereas when we look at hard science regarding solar variation and paleoclimate, human-caused global warming falls apart.