How, pray tell? Give a solid statement, rather than making vague pronouncements and leaving the reader to fill in the blanks of your reasoning. Example: "Climate change is as much of a threat to human inhabitability of Earth as nuclear weapons, simply on a slower scale."

Very good way of phrasing it. I surmise this is also a big part of the reason why there isn't as much of a mass panic as the spectre of nuclear apocalypse has caused.

A nuclear war is a much more concentrated and immediate event. It could start at the press of a button and be over in days/weeks (in terms of immediate damage). There is something visceral and terrifying about it's rapidity.

A climate catastrophe is fundamentally slower, and even if the damage would be far greater, it feels less of a threat (very subjectively). It's easier to handwave it away. "People will think of something" is easier to say when a process happens over decades than when it happens in days.

One can conveniently live in the phantasy that "I'll be climate conscious from tomorrow/next week/next year" for the time being, because the effects are still not terrible (for the 1st world).

I still give it credence.