I don't really understand the point this is trying to make.

It's saying climate catastrophe journalism was overblown (apparently starting in 2016 when Trump was elected?) but that now it's gone too far the other way, and is too optimistic because our already achieved level of warming is going to lead to some bad stuff.

But given the many feedback loops involved, and the uncertaintities of prediction, I don't see how the catastrophes can be considered not in line with the science? They're still a possibility if we hit tipping points.