No, but incremental climate change yes, probably with sufficient time for some adaptation (though I’m sure water shortages and refugee issues will continue and worsen, boiling oceans, no). There’s also a lot of unknown about feedback effects and how these will play out (for example, there’s significant and generally acknowledged ‘greening’ going on with increases in CO2, and these are positive from the point of view of absorption of greenhouse gases - see this Nasa view: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth). It is very difficult to be sure, hence the precautionary principle should apply.
In terms of @no-class’s comment above on skepticism, many people just don’t bother posting in threads like these if they even intimate anything outside the mainstream view (or even question it) because they fear being widely ostracized. The result is the bias of views (in a thread like these) is overwhelmingly doomladen. If that makes people feel very depressed, that’s a serious thing (hence me sticking my head above the parapet to be shot off).
In terms of background, I’m a physical geographer working in the environment, largely on renewables projects and frequently on habitat restoration projects, but still think it’s wise to try and grapple with all sides of the arguments. I used to be an academic and it was absolutely the case (even 20 years ago) that the easiest way to get funding for future work was to add a ‘things will be worse under climate change, so can we have some money to see how much worse they will be’. I left academia and decided to be something more practical instead (applying knowledge). Definitely keep appraised of what’s going on, but don’t let it get you down. Do what you can, and stay well.