What's the purpose of denying recorded averages[1]? It's a given 1.5 will happen, as none of the drastic measures have been acted on and most goals have not been hit.
Denying recorded averages in this case is unfortunately very reasonable, because temperature graphs don't show recorded averages. That is a common misconception that governments are happy to encourage.
Modern temperature graphs are the output of models. The raw data isn't reported. This results in strange artifacts like record breaking temperatures that later become un-record breaking due to revision of historical values. In fact, the "recorded" temperature for every month in history changes every month:
NOAAGlobalTempv5 is a reconstructed dataset, meaning that the entire period of record is recalculated each month with new data. Based on those new calculations, the new historical data can bring about updates to previously reported values.
I think the track record of climate predictions using Co2 etc have been all wrong, so a reasonable person would assume that the chance of additional predictions being wrong is quite high. Additionally, the actual science (by objective scientists) demonstrating human generated cO2 having any impact on global temperature has not been found, and arguably, the theory not behaving in the way the promoters of it have predicted over the last decade with all the models being wrong is quite good evidence for the theory not being true. Its hyper political actually, so a good question for this would be why? Similar things happened with the science of Covid, it also went political, and again, why?
[1] https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/...