I do. Maybe I'm just one and every other person on Earth thinks otherwise, but I just can't see the "catastrophic" unless it is stated in relation to how radical this climate change is and in what direction.

Many more people die now from cold weather than from warm weather. So maybe a little rise in temperature is a good thing. And historic evidence shows that warmer climate meant more productive crops in the middle ages and in the roman empire.

Maybe I am wrong, but I would need more solid evidence of the catastrophic consequences of climate change before sentencing millions of people to death because we choose to spend money fighting climate change instead of fighting malaria or improving access to clean water.

I think lots of people don't think global warming would be "catastrophic." Otherwise it would completely steamroll over any arguments against deploying more nuclear power.

It's a typical human short-sightedness/availability heuristic. People can act if you shove the consequences directly into their faces. All it took is two planes crashing into skyscrapers to start two wars and reinvent both transportation and information security (for better or worse). But the climate change goes too slow, you can't really see the consequences, you need to trust the specialists, and that's where things fall down. Doubly so if you have democracy, since you can't really do anything important if you keep asking everyone for opinion.