For example, if you terminate your secure traffic on an AWS ELB (or using S3, or CloudFront), you are serving HTTP/1.1 with TLS. And will be for the foreseeable future.
HTTP2 can be started via an HTTP over TLS request, that doesn't mean that it's HTTPS as defined in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2818 and https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7230
But that's the entire argument he's making. It's not what I mean. When I go to my web host's sysadmins and say "I need to use https so I can use service workers," I don't mean "I need to use TLS so I can use service workers." I mean what I said. https was once defined as merely http + TLS (well, SSL), but it has now come to be a protocol/scheme that supports things that http does not. One of those, and certainly the biggest, is TLS. But there are other differences.
This is a comparison between http and https. It investigates the reason why https is faster, and makes it clear that the difference is that https means other things besides TLS.
This doesn't invalidate the argument that you're comparing two things and claiming you're comparing two other things prima facia. For this use-case HTTP/2 will be faster, with or without TLS (if it could be tested). Claiming that it's the TLS that's speeding up the connection, which is what you mean when you say http vs https) is just plain wrong.