They should do what the IPCC does and take an average of a bunch of mutually conflicting cooling projections (each obtained with different core methodologies, ranging in quality from poor to extremely poor, with none able to accurately hindcast beyond 40 years - even after including 40+ years of data in their data assimilations and model parametrization) and call the result “science by consensus”.
Or we can just take ALL of the projections and “average” them. Why exercise critical thinking when we can instead apply the scientific equivalent of democratic compromise and just go with the “consensus” provided by an “unbiased” mean?
Buy and hoard light bulbs. They (incendescents - halogens etc.) are going to be extinct soon and a stash is the best hedge against mercury poisoning..