Whoa, you seem to be rather over confident in your own knowledge - probably to the extent that causes you to not adjust your understanding in the face of new information. At the very least, you should probably temper your willingness to say things like:
Your neighbor is a liar, I'm afraid.
and
Everything you believe is foundationally incorrect.
As it shows a sort of brash arrogance that generally causes people to just ignore your rhetoric and move on while leaving you a downvote. I persist, mainly because I know there's a broader audience than just you alone.
Humans create a stable biosphere. That's what agriculture is.
A biosphere isn't created by humans btw. That's not what agriculture is. You may want to correct your understanding of a biosphere; it's the sum total of various ecosystems around the planet - i.e. the planetary ecosystem as a whole.
I'll walk back my statement " it hasn't undergone this level of change this rapidly before." to it rarely undergoes this level of rapid change - which inevitably preciptates significant disruption in ecological systems (massive species die off).
Life will definetly survive, humans will survive too. But there's a pretty massive range between 'barely scraping by' and 'thriving', both of which may be possible in this century - so let's not act like this is an all or nothing kind of deal.
Point is, there are definetly 'points of no return' - various ecological steady states where getting back would require geo-engineering feats that we haven't attempted before (other than inadvertantly through the destruction of our biosphere). It might be a possibility, in the same way general AI and matrix grade VR might be a possibility - but not really stuff you want to count on with absolute certainty.
But we're already seeing climate change based impact at this point. More extremes causing more disasters - massive wildfires, massive storms and hurricanes. Expect more variance leading to more extremes leading to more disasters as the century continues on.
It's not just all fires and storms either that'll cause the damage (although that will be a source of more damage than many expect), it'll be the droughts, the die offs. It's also the under discussed acidification of the oceans that will cause problems for global sea life. These will all have impact on countries around the world - indeed has already had impacts. Poorer countries that can't afford to mitigate increasing variations to the ecosystem quite as readily (either through better technology, agricultural practices, shifting to other food sources, or simply buying food from the open market) will simply be faced with increasing starvation.
As this happens, these countries will face increasing unrest, leading to overthrowing of governments, leading to power vacuums and civil wars, leading in turn to a growing refugee crisis. We already see this now. It will merely continue on; in the developed world, we'll see this as erroding buying power for the average person.
Will we see some sort of inflection point where enough damage is done to humanity, enough lives are lost that, that in and of itself acts as a natural limiter to the threat posed by climate change? Sure... but also expect a significant proportion of the human race to be dead or in strife at that point.
Of course... not everything I say has to come to pass. But we're currently not on a course to avoid the worst of it.