The story of mine that you're replying to is clearly written for people who have already decided that they want to be open to reason changing their mind.

Of course, many people don't aspire to be open to reason. Maybe you're not one of them.

However, credentials or no, your statements of doom (elsewhere) go way, way beyond either the conclusions in the IPCC AR6 WG2 documents, or any credible consequence of the predictions in the IPCC AR6 WG1 reports.

So, as someone who knows a good deal about the science (e.g. I read the AR4 WG1 document cover to cover when it came out; have also looked up dozens of primary papers to refine my understanding of particular physical processes), I feel it is my obligation to alert people that you are misleading them specifically with regard to the characterization of how extreme consequences might get, even if you have no interest or inclination in changing those views on the basis of science, evidence, or anything else.

Because, you see, I do actually understand the reliability and limitations of climate models, know the ranges of temperature changes predicted, understand the thermal tolerance of humans, the ranges of crops, the flow of ocean currents, various (known) potential tipping points, etc. etc..