Actually you are correct. I am guilty of simplifying the narrative here. There is ample evidence that using "honest" numbers and science would add another +0.5°C to +0.7°C to the current 'mainstream' number.

The problem for me is one of credibility. I am already FRINGE but "not to far out". If I push too much and start going with 2XCO2 means +8°C of warming, which it MIGHT, I will sound to extreme.

I get accused by some Climate Zealots of "selling out" by not pushing a "cutting edge" interpretation of the evidence and giving a consistent "worst case" read on the data. I prefer to think that I give my readers a "heads up" on the worst case but stick to what can be proven now.

Does that make me a bad person or just pragmatic?

As long as you are aware that I am filtering the TORRENT of information I look at and making choices about what I include or exclude. Then you can make an informed choice about how much to trust my opinion and analysis.

I try to be as upfront as possible about my choices but as you note, there will be times that you might disagree with my judgement.

Which us why I love that my readers engage both with me AND with the material.