Charming reply.

There are lies, there are damn lies, and then there are statistics.

The IPCC put together four different emission scenarios called the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP). Each has a number associated with it, indicating the total amount of radiative forcing caused by greenhouse gasses.

The low end is RCP 2.6, which would be very little increase in greenhouse gasses. There's also RCP 4.5, 6.0 and 8.5. If you plug 8.5 into a model, you get a climate catastrophe. Reviews of past climate model predictions show one of the reasons they miss the mark is they overestimate the amount of CO2 actually added to the atmosphere. If they chose the lower end they would get better results, but they choose the high end for political effect.

Here's an article which appeared in Nature complaining about the problem.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00177-3

The authors believe in climate change, but at least they want their models to use honest data and make good faith projections.

Now, please explain how deliberately choosing the worst case scenario for climate models that everyone knows is not going to happen is not fudging. Or, as you like to say, "STFU."

I'll be waiting patiently for your carefully reasoned and erudite reply.

And I'll take silence for evidence you have been shocked by the evidence in the Nature article and revelation that many climate models are deliberately stacked to alarm the public, and that you have indeed STFU'd. If so, you should try some of that toilet wine you mentioned. Might ease the pain.