The result being, you equate someone expressing questions about the any parts of this process with deluded people. This doesn't seem conducive to healthy discussion.
"patient" earth is sick. Will you cure him or not? That's the only important question.
For that matter, I don't think you are making a honest argument here, as you paint experts coming together to check each others work as something bad. People don't generally object to the linux kernel simply because it is "the coordinated work of thousands".
Nor is it normal to pretend that there isn't dissent within the linux project, as you try with climate change by saying "anyone who expresses skepticism[sic]" isn't welcome. And you do this in a comment thread of an article that is explicitly about dissent (about details) within the climate community.
There seems to be an effort to use the the historical example of Milikan, where a respected authority got a slightly low value, and all subsequent measurements all ended up above it, because that's where the truth was. Then it is claimed that likewise for climate change models above the average are preferred.
But this actually doesn't make any sense! First, because in the Milikan example the problem was subsequent experiments were biased conservative, meaning the bias would be expected towards under heating models. In other words, the lesson from Milikan is that there is a risk our models aren't heating fast enough.
So by the quoted example we should be worry that our models under predicts, and yet Milikan is stood up to argue the models are too wild in their warming predictions?
Here is the problem, here is the hard science, here is how we can fix it.
Flat earthers and the like don't get nearly as far in part because they have no such counterpoint to leverage. They remain on the fringes, not taken seriously. Climate change deniers could be relegated to the same fate if we'd be clear about predictions vs science, and ease up on the doomsaying. Doomsayers tend to be ignored for good reason. The world is always said to be ending, yet it never does. Instead it's become drastically better, historically. Global warming is a problem to be solved. Stick to the science.
The post you are defending is doing more than simply pointing out that the models are models. It is also claiming, without any proof or even argument in support, that experts all over the world are only publishing high predictions.
As for an argument, well, experts have been on the wrong side about things like climate predictions, stock predictions, economy, nutrition and so on many times. Even to terrible effect. We replaced fat with trans-fats and sugar, for example. So it's at least fair to be skeptical.
Personally, I'm on the side of science and climate change is a problem we need to solve. And I think we will because we tend to be good about solving slow moving disasters. Besides, optimism and hope about the future is a better strategy than seeding people with fear, doubt and anxiety.
See ipcch.ch