Thanks for the link.  An interesting little screed.  Unfortunately, it's hard to know how serious to take the modellers at their word.  They tend to less than forthcoming about the use of Bayesian statistical technique built into their models (i.e., subjective probability estimates).   The warming parameter 'mean global temperature' that is central to the predictions of disaster, is notoriously difficult to pin down in - try getting one of the signatories on the link to define it or tell you how to measure or calculate it.  (It's like trying to get a cogent definition of the Trinity from a stanch Christian.)  :-/   It is also troubling that back in 2015, the modellers eliminated one of their major embarrassments, the so-called ~2000 - 2010 temperature increase 'hiatus' - by the simple expedient of going back and _editing the input data_ until the results "came out right".   Call me Old School, but had I or my contemporaries done such a thing in grad school ...