Cutting comments that are demonstrably true just because you don't like the consequence is completely unprofessional. It tells me that the truth is so scary to you that you can't help but deny it. The reason it's so scary is because the political implications are so incredibly devastating to the Democratic party and anyone with strong ties to the left simply can't handle the truth, especially those on the green bandwagon. Scientists should rise above this and decouple politics from the consequences of the scientific method. Unfortunately, climate science doesn't accept the results of the scientific method when they dispute the narrative.
The consensus denies the applicability of the SB LAW to the radiative balance of the planet, denies the applicability of COE relative to available feedback power and denies the Second Law of Thermodynamics relative to the net effect of the planet's water evaporation/condensation driven heat engine that manifests weather. Moreover; the consensus denies the obvious conflict of interest at the IPCC which became the arbiter of what is and what is not climate science. Meanwhile they call people like me deniers, yet can't cite a single law of physics that we are supposed to be denying. Apparently, the consensus does not understand the difference between denial and dispute. I certainly dispute the conclusions of the IPCC, especially the high sensitivity it claims, but I deny no physical laws.
At this point you have two options.
1) You can remain part of the problem and be crushed as the house of cards you call climate science collapses around you.
2) You can rise above the politics, come to grips with the actual science, enable a constructive discussion and be a hero by mitigating the political damage of the truth to your political party.
Unfortunately, I suspect you will choose option 1) and will bet any amount of money that you will eventually wish you chose otherwise. If you should choose option 2) I will be more than happy to help you.