It seems to be a popular hobby in online forums for some people (probably mostly dismissive of AGW) to strawman "AGW Catastrophising". This typically follows a pattern of "x, y and z was predicted by AGW catastrophists z years ago, but the catastrophes haven't yet happened".
There is a germ of truth in what such critics suggest. However, that germ arises, in the main, from loosely worded 'predictions' by journalists rather than from proper scientific works. And it is leapt upon by those resistant to the changes required to deal with AGW and blown out of proportion (and strawmanned) as part of attempts to stop or slow down the inevitable transition to a decarbonised global economy.
The climate crisis (and it is a crisis) has characteristics (eg long time lags in climate feedbacks) which make it easy for critics to poke holes in it based on shorter-term evidence. However, the long-term trends in the changes and damages caused by AGW are quite clear, from IPCC reports and other credible sources. Just because most of the worst impacts will be felt by younger generations (and generations as yet unborn) rather than currently older generations, that does not mean that the unfolding crisis is any less severe. And climate tipping points are a further reason to be concerned about, rather than dismissive of, the AGW-driven climate crisis.
Finally, the detractors attacking what they call "climate catastrophism" are guilty of the fallacy made by an apocryphal person falling from a tall building who says, while passing each floor "so far so good, so far so good [ie 'not the catastrophe predicted by others yet]"
The Planetary CFO - working towards a sustainable World Balance Sheet.