I do read sources other than the ones you mention, and many of...

I do read sources other than the ones you mention, and many of them paint a far worse picture than what you get from those mainstream outlets. There's no point repeating the facts about the overwhelming reality of anthropogenic global heating and the dangers it poses. It's not just those media outlets. The US Department of Defence, Lloyds of London, the CSIRO and BoM, to name a few, all concur. This is beyond politics, partisanship and internet one-upmanship. Where it counts - physics, meteorology and climate science in general - that battle ended a long time ago.

Science doesn't provide certainty, it is about probabilities. If something is looking 98% certain, you can scream about the 2% of exceptions all you like, but I'm going with the most probable outcome.

As for being a catastrophist - firstly, I think the new word for people like me is "doomist". Also, your list of names is wrong, I am more in the James Hansen camp, and not the Michael Mann camp. This means I think mainstream climate policy is lagging. The energy transition is not a viable response, we don't have the carbon budget to create renewables, 1.5 is dead, 2.0 has its head on the guillotine, there's too much mitigation and not enough adaptation, better get ready because it's coming!