Our planet will exist for a long time after humans (as we know them now) become extinct, that's not the question and not at risk by the current rising CO2 levels.
The risk is whether we can continue living here as humans and expand our numbers as we're currently growing without making some changes how we use the resources the earth provides for us.
The discussion in this thread is the differences of opinion between a group of people who claim there is no problem and no change is needed and another group who think we need to be more careful and make some changes, especially on how much and which energy we use to keep society running (these are the two extremes, and there are obviously more varying opinions inbetween)
I don't think this discussion or any other discussion online among scientists or citizen scientists really has a grasp of the size and level of risk of the problem they think they can solve by just throttling down one molecule in the atmosphere. There are so many other problems we know we can solve because we have the resources and the will to do so like housing the homeless, taking care of our veterans, feeding the poor, cleaning up Super Fund sites, but yet we don't, can't or won't solve these problems. We need to focus on reducing one molecule, CO2.
We're all going to eventually die from a number of molecules of varying levels of destructiveness as we all decay in some way or another. Focusing on one molecule, CO2, as the cause of the demise of the entire human species presents a scale of magnitude that belongs in a sci-fi movie compared to the size (and reality) and scale of problems we've been able to solve in the past. I'ld rather fix the problems we know we can fix before we tackle making the climate behave the way we want it to.
If Global Climate Change is a real problem, it's just too big to fix compared to the size of other problems we've been able to solve.