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.
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.