From the perspective of every other lineage of anarchists, private property is one of the things that enforces injust hierarchies. Using that label is like calling yourself "vegano-carnivore" because you want to reduce the suffering of eating animals as much as possible while still eating them. Even if you can come up with a justification on it by presenting clearly realizable ways to implement this (e.g. lab grown meat), it is adopting a label from a community that does not want them to do so. Indeed, there was already a ready-made label "laisez-faire", but that one has sufficiently negative historical associations that I guess it is to be avoided.

Regarding Friedman,  I would challenge the statement that he provides ways to organize it without a state, given that he romantizices medieval iceland and the western frontier and I am highly skeptical that the law enforcement/military aspect required for enforcing capital right would not lead to the tyranny of the robber barons in their company towns again, but I would have to revisit it for detailed rebuttal.

I think it's important to distinguish "anarcho"-capitalist thought (which still needs a state to enforce private property and capital rights and generally doesn't acknowledge the problems of monopolies, existing power imbalances etc.) and actual anarchist/anti-totalitarian policies.

All the things you mentioned except the last

(...) reduce central control, like charter cities, cryptocurrency and decentralised pandemic control

decentralise control from a democratic state to a moneyed elite, not to a more democratic state, confederation, anarchist commune or whatever.

Consider that this might be coming from a techno-utopian perspective itself? We could very plausibly stop or at least delqay climate change by drastically reducing the use of technology right now (COVID bought us a few months just by shutting down planes although that has "recovered" now ) and focus on rolling out existing technology. And there are (granted, fringe) political positions that argue industrialisation and maybe even agriculture was a mistake and critique the "civilisation" narrative (and no, not all of them are arguing to abandon medicine and live like cavemen, it's more nuanced than that).

I'm not saying you are "wrong", I'm saying that the instinct to judge  coming up with a magic technology to allow economic growth and the current state of life while fixing climate change as more likely than global coordination to use existing  technology in more sustainable ways feels techno-utopian to me. Technology causes problems? Just add more technology!

I think it's simplistic to reduce the critique to "minority opinion bad". At the very least, you need to reduce it to "minority opinion which happens to reinforce existing power relations and is mainly advocated by billionaires and those funded by it bad". Bentham argued for diminishing his own privilege over others, to give other people MORE choice, irrespective of their power and wealth and with no benefit to him. There is a difference imo

Not really. The IPCC  

(...) provides regular assessments of the scientific basis of climate change, its impacts and future risks, and options for adaptation and mitigation.

, and is not a political thinktank (even though climate risk deniers and minizers might like to claim it is), is funded at least by 65% by nation states and the UN (44% USA in 2018, 25% by  the next inheriting their democratic legitimacy  w.r.t to funding any money) and fundamentally deals with something much more narrowly defined, empirically verifiable and graspable than the TUA main causes. It suffers from a lot of the same problems w.r.t representation and democracy as all of science and society does, but it's not nearly as donor-alignment-driven as the targets of the article