So?
What, really, is the damage of an article (or a thousand articles) explaining, "See, this is what is going to happen, at least a plausible scenario, in case we keep doing what we're doing?" I liked the article, even though it could have been better and clearer at times. I liked it particularly because it serves to destroy the myth that those living somewhere in northern Norway or Canada need not worry about climate change, and somehow fertile lands lost to scorching heat in the (Sub-) Tropics will be replaced by a then-arable Siberia. That's not gonna happen.
I understand why serious climate scientists, being routinely scolded for "alarmism", would want to put some distance between themselves and the author. I'd bet some of them, at least, would give a finger for the freedom to rattle the cages all around the way this journalist did. Moreover, Ken, as we both know, no way, no how, science these days can predict with any certainty what feedback loops we're going to trigger, and what kind of warming we'll get with the next 100pm of carbon-equivalent we blow into the air. There is no way to predict political reactions to climate change (and subsequent societal change) and their climate impact all around the world anyway. So, why not have at least one journalist, or a few, reaching the outer and upper limits of plausible scenarios? I'd rather bet that the current crop of climate scientists will be in for severe criticisms down the road for letting themselves be cowed into settling for the lower bounds of climate change effects - in order to avoid the "alarmist" label.