Science helps us arrive closer and closer to the truth, through hypothesis, experimentation, review, and revision. So yes, by definition science isn't in the business of fear mongering. But that really has no bearing on whether or not people choose to be terrified by the facts uncovered by science.

The IPCC has indeed carefully avoided claims which may appear to be "fearmongering". However, a consequence of this is that they typically discuss the least severe warming scenarios in predictions of the effects of climate change. But the fact is that at current emissions, temperature anomalies of 3 C or more are likely within the next century. Barring large-scale geoengineering on a scale never before attempted, such an amount of warming would be utterly devastating to human civilization. Relevant historical comparisons include the Black Plague and the Spanish flu and not much else. Nine-figure death tolls are not off the menu.

A nine-figure death toll seems optimistic, unfortunately.

I didn't pretend to present a scientific assessment of the situation. However I've been following closely the situation on energy (we are running out of it), other resources (phosphates, essential to industrial agriculture, metals, essential to any industry, particularly the hyped "green energies"), ecology, climate, for the past 15 years and the situation is dire.

You've been diagnosed with terminal cancer. Our models show, according to a majority of experts, that your quality of life will possibly be affected, with a consensus opinion that you may have a 10 to 20 year reduction in expected social interaction.

Sometimes telling it how it is equates to good bedside manner.

When the next local Gamma Ray Burst comes along, the planet will be sterilized.

Am I also fearmongering?