I suspect you might be experiencing the classic freshman medical student syndrome. The papers (or medical studies) need to be contextualised, and that contextualisation takes lots more of knowledge than just reading some papers casually.
Instead, I suggest reading IPCC reports. While quite stark and damning, they provide context for the predictions and balance speculation out, so you don't get "we're all going to die in a decade", "our kids are going to starve to death" kind of nonsense that gets into public attention (thus incentivising lousy papers coming to similar conclusions).
> I suspect you might be experiencing the classic freshman medical student syndrome.
That is hubris.
I have skimmed the action reports for policy makers from the IPCC.
A humanist approach to the nihilism and fatalism around climate change might be that the urgency presented is what is required to make progress in a time frame where we don't meet horrific consequences. In other words, bias and exaggerate so that we take the action necessary, and not get complacent or have a "balanced" point of view - which may be sufficiently as bad as ignoring the problem altogether.
You call it "humanist", I call it "lying to the public to convince them that the end is nigh and to force the behaviour you want". This is not just morally repugnant, but also can backfire spectacularly as truth tends to come out in the end. In fact, arguably that's what makes people tune out already, you can listen to "Arctic will be completely ice free next year" and believe it only so many times.
i have a PhD in theoretical physics (done in the same building where one of the core IPCC group is located) and been doing three postdocs in computational engineering and computer science. i am working my weekends to change career in order to tackle these issues. i did read (and summarised for my colleagues) the IPCC report (AR6 WG1) during my holidays.
i am however grateful of your comments on how to improve my approach of the literature!
Instead, I suggest reading IPCC reports. While quite stark and damning, they provide context for the predictions and balance speculation out, so you don't get "we're all going to die in a decade", "our kids are going to starve to death" kind of nonsense that gets into public attention (thus incentivising lousy papers coming to similar conclusions).