There are supported claims and unsupported claims. You continue to offer unsupported claims as though they were indisputable facts. Don't be suprised when you're challenged.
Thank you for the single source you provided, but it hardly proves the "fudging" you allege, defined as devising as a substitute, faking, or falsifying -- all fairly negative connotations of intent by the way.
The first sentence of the article -- "More than a decade ago, climate scientists and energy modellers made a choice about how to describe the effects of emissions on Earth’s future climate." -- is likewise entirely unsupported.
How and where was this decision made? Was it made by all climate scientists and energy modellers? How does this choice, assuming it actually happened, constitute "fudging"?
You've chosen to characterize this "choice" quite negatively and to imply that it was made intentionally, while again providing no context on why it was made, etc in the first place. This is misleading if not libelous.
The article then goes on to make a series of unsupported assumptions about the use of fossil fuels that may have seemed reasonable two years ago but that read very differently now, against the backdrop of global instability due to war, etc.
It also omits (intentionally?) the record of "moderate" organizations like the International Energy Agency, which advocates for use of the less extreme scenarios, on consistently underestimating the role of renewable energy sources, etc, allegedly under pressure from the U.S. Several university and NGO studies have been critical of the IEA's work, calling their studies "political documents" and citing their "over-confidence, despite credible data, external analysis and underlying fundamentals all strongly suggesting a more precautionary approach".
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/nov/12/oil-shortage-uppsala-aleklett
So again, where is the proof? You've chosen a less extreme model. Fine, but there are a LOT of good reasons why this could be wrong. Everyone most certainly does NOT know what's going to happen.
When the stakes are all life on earth, the rational strategy would seem to be to hope for the best but plan for the worst, as the "fudgers" have done.
