The frightening thing is that global warming is an escalating thing. Every change that happens increases the rate of warming. That's where the "cyclical" theory falls down. It makes the incorrect assumption that somehow temperatures will level off and fall like they did in the past. They will only level off if we do something. So the Apocalypse theory is not ridiculous.
The argument that we should learn to adapt instead / as well as make changes to slow the rate of warming is really just kicking the can down the road. We know that people over 50 won't have to adapt that much to deal with the climate change they face in their lifetime. However their children most definitely will.
I'm not convinced at all by the argument that the best thing we can do is not to have children. That sounds like Harry and Meghan winning applause for limiting their family to 2 while flying all over the place in private jets and consuming 100 times more resources than the average third-world family of 8.
Offsetting carbon is a ruse. I met a couple of young carbon credit traders who had made a ton of money helping companies that contribute the most to global warming greenwash themselves by investing in projects like buying paraffin lamps for poor African households because they produce less CO2 than some other forms of lighting available to them. The net result isn't zero carbon emissions but the oil, gas and airline companies can pretend it is.
I'm afraid that I don't see us diverting the disaster. I hear far too many older people say that they cannot possibly change their lifestyle and won't be prevented from "living life to the fullest" or enjoying their hard-earned retirement by travelling the world, using their combustion cars for daily jaunts, spending time in two properties etc. They are burying their heads in the sand and pointing fingers at China.
Our democratic system is not geared up to prevent climate change either. Our politicians are funded by companies and individuals who want to make money, despite their effect on the environment. When they get into government they make bold statements about changes way off into the future, well beyond their time in power. At the same time they keep funding or subsidising oil. gas, air transport, roads, inefficient food production and distribution, use of land for housing, etc. etc. I can;t see how any organisation powerful enough to make a change to the way the climate is going could emerge.
Humanity won't become extinct in the next 50 years but our new global society is actually very fragile. It isn't able to adapt to big changes in migration, geo-economic shifts, moves to new energy sources, changes in the desirability of habitation or even relatively small political swings. What seem like minor issues result in massive effects on the economy. Sub-prime debt hardly affected anyone but when it broke, hundreds of millions of people were made poorer.
Basically we are all living on borrowed time. Not just environmentally but financially, economically and socially. We live in a world propped up by finite fossil fuels, vast levels of government debt, the virtual wealth of property, Bitcoin and speculative funds.
The planet is going to forces to change our ways and when that happens, it will not be organised and it won't be gentle.