I see you deleted your other comment, bit of a habit with you. Have a read if you have time:
I did delete a comment immediately after I posted it in order to better present my statement. Is that a problem for you? If so, explain why.
I never presented an "Energy Balance Model" (?) argument and I am not a climatologist. I treat this as a political stunt, just like nearly everyone else who holds an opinion on the subject. Ask everyone you discuss this with, what degree they hold and what other scientific opinion is so dear.
I have no idea what this means:
It would also mean our remaining carbon budgetfor meeting the 2°C Paris target is about twice as large than if the mainstream consensus is right. If the consensus is correct, we’re on pace to blow through the remaining Paris carbon budget by around 2030.
I did delete a comment immediately after I posted it in order to better present my statement. Is that a problem for you? If so, explain why.
Some people feel that once they put their words on public record, it's only common courtesy to leave them there, especially when others may be replying to what they've written. It's a matter of character in my opinion.
Apart from the most minor grammar, if I need to edit my comment I'll make clear what I've edited. I don't delete comments, and if I make a mistake I try to leave it there and admit it.
Fortunately "they" walked back their catastrophic prediction time frame, for the (~)8th time in a decade. Laser AND satellite readings not as predicted, AGAIN? How about the buoys, still not up to the predictor snuff?