Investigative journalism has always, always, always pushed narratives. In fact, you can't avoid it. There will always be information that is included and information that is discarded in any piece of journalism. Both the information that is included and the information that is discarded are critical for pushing a narrative, telling a story.
Responsible journalism asks questions like these: "What perspectives on this issue am I leaving out? Is it justified to do so?". There's a near endless supply of perspectives on virtually any issue. Of course representing all of them in a journalistic piece would be impossible, so a journalist needs to make a decision about which perspectives should be included and which should be left out.
Is it fair for journalists writing about climate change to leave out climate change denialist perspectives? Perhaps, especially when climate change denialists engage in deceptive arguments, which is extremely common. But often, some amount of skepticism is totally warranted, as there is even quantified uncertainty in the IPCC reports. Often journalists can cross into propagandist territory by not including some of that skepticism, and it makes their presented narratives a bit less credible, especially to people who have been inoculated by hardcore climate change denialist propaganda.
We really don't know exactly how bad things will get by 2100 (or later), there are several different models based on many different parameters, and humans can significantly alter those outcomes based on decisions we make. There are a few facts which are undeniable, and can be verified by virtually anyone: atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are rising, mean global temperatures are rising yoy. Based on many models, the rate these changes are occurring at will very likely cause significant systemic problems to the ease at which we, and most other species, survive on this planet.