"Based upon what? This appears to be nothing more than wishful thinking or presumption." Based on many things. Our tenacity, for starters. Primitive as we were

"Based upon what? This appears to be nothing more than wishful thinking or presumption." Based on many things. Our tenacity, for starters. Primitive as we were, tens of thousands of years ago we already had the capacity to populate almost the entire planet, be it the lush grasslands, or arctic/sandy deserts. Now count in our current capacity. Even in the unlikely event where we "bomb ourselves" into a nuclear winter, I very much doubt we'll suffer any long term major drawback. As the time progressed we simply became more proactive and prepared ourselves for such eventuality and have bounce-back plans in place. We have technical capacity to do a lot of things here on earth, including to direct the current climate change or even to arrest it if necessary. We just had no serious reason to do that. Overall, we are mostly at "seeking our comfort" stage, not on "straightening it up" stage. If the upcoming global warming will prove to be bad in almost all its aspects, that will warrant a change in our priorities; I have no doubts about it. But as I've tried to say, maybe the coming change isn't necessarily bad. Why won't we welcome it and experience it up close? What if the current increase in planetary temperature can be used somehow in our advantage? That, I reckon, is (or should be) our defining trait as evolving civilization. "the life on our planet has the highest chance of survival in the future" "Again, our track record speaks loudly against this" That is because you are inclined to listen that voice and ignore anything else contradicting it. We have reservations and other means where as time progressed, unlike the other extinction events, we took responsible steps towards preserving the existing species even in the face of their natural decline (arguably, examples of this may include Kakapo parrots or Panda bears).