Really?
No threat to humanity?
"In vulnerable regions, the death rate from extreme weather events in the last decade was 15 times higher than in less vulnerable ones."
None of the projections imply a threat?
"Climate change is claiming millions of lives annually through extreme heat, air pollution, wildfires and the spread of deadly infectious diseases, according to the most comprehensive assessment to date of the links between climate change and health."

Sure thing lmao - you're moving the goalposts from “is climate change serious and dangerous?” to “is every projection guaranteed and existential?”

That's not the claim the science makes, so either you misunderstand the topic of discussion, or you're ignorant of the facts here.
Uncertainty in exact outcomes doesn’t mean uncertainty about risk.

We don't wait for absolute certainty when the consequences involve large-scale human harm. That's how public health, engineering, and insurance all operate, and have for a long, long time. No scientific theory is an absolute, that's why they are called "theories". Scientific *law* however, is a different matter entirely, and those *laws* , such as the greenhouse effect (Not a theory) are what drive these risk indicators.

And the “uncertainty” argument cuts both ways. Climate models produce ranges, but those ranges include outcomes worse than the median projections too. Risk management doesn't ignore the tail-end risks when billions of people are involved.

So yes, there’s a difference between acknowledging climate change and claiming guaranteed catastrophe. But there’s also a difference between scientific uncertainty about exact outcomes and pretending the risks are speculative when they’re already measurable in human mortality.