Yes, but you are skipping over what I said immediately before. It is unlikely to get that bad because before it gets that bad it will get bad enough that people will start demanding action politically.
No, I have already responded to that point twice. Why would you still think I'm skipping that point? And why then do you keep bringing up the earth's ability to "sort it out", nobody else does that, and that's the only reason I am talking about it... not because I would be skipping that point. You seem to be skipping that point yourself.
My answer was, and is, that once it gets "bad enough" as you say, the CO2 causing that badness will stay in the atmosphere for a really long time, probably for hundreds of years, so that badness would continue that long. That would be unacceptable: we need to be able to anticipate the catastrophe before it happens, or at least the sufficient probability of such a catastrophe. We cannot wait until the predictions of climate science become true, in order to convince those who still don't want to accept climate science. We need much more political action now, without further delay.
But I am curious: how bad do you think it needs to get? I just read an article that republican politicians are just starting to accept the fact that temperatures are increasing, which is still a far way from accepting climate science in general. I guess Trump is still calling it all a hoax, and he is still the one to whome most others bend their knee. What kind of badness do you think it will take for Trump to change his mind?
It’s a big problem for humans but not a big problem for the earth. Everything will balance itself out and (such that we’ve changed the name from global warming to climate change) sustainable population change will occur irrespective of our actions.
I don't get why you still talk about this in biblic proportions. Considering we are humans (most likely), a "big problem for humans" is simply a big problem.