I don't disagree with your underlying point.  Clearly, the earth can heal itself.   The impact that humans have on the long term health of the earth is less clear, but certainly it is something.  Those facts aren't at issue here.

The issue is that we have been told repeatedly that we'll be fucked by year X if Y doesn't happen.  Y never happens, and year X always comes and goes, and we're never fucked.  So, "climate scientists" (a commonly used term that we could spend a whole thread discussing) as a group lack credibility. 

They're wrong every time.  They cry wolf, but no wolves ever show up.  So, fewer and fewer people pay attention to each successive cry.  Frankly, to the extent that "climate science" is an important field (and I believe it is pretty important), they owe it to humanity to stop constantly making wildly inaccurate claims. Only then will we be able to actually hear them if there truly is something that needs prompt attention.

Based on the replies you and others give in this thread I want to make a quick summary of your thoughts (I don't want to single you out on this entirely but your post is just a great hook, please don't be mad at me).

How it really is:

A) Scientists claim that humanity will suffer severely if we don't change.
B) Governments declare rules and regulations to help face the dangers
C) Industries adapt, new technologies arise, efficiency is increased, less resources are used
D) The end doesn't come, scientists are wrong

How it appears to you:

A) Scientists claim that humanity will suffer severely if we don't change.
B) The end doesn't come, scientists are wrong

You may not always see the consequences but technology is always on the verge of becoming more efficient and less resource consuming, and this process is propelled by the science behind it. Nowadays researchers try to push biodegradable packaging solutions for example to stop wasting our oceans. Power generation from fossil fuels become exchanged against natural resources like wind, water and the sun. Car manufactores work on car engines with electrical or hydrogen cells to stop polluting the air. The change is happening, my friend. We still have a long road ahead of us, however, and the more people are behin this change, the easier it will be for everyone.

Once humanity has solved the climate problem, there will always be people who close their eyes and ears about all the small changes and milestones that were reached on the journey. Those people will still say that scientiests were always wrong. But that is simply because humanity listens to them.

EDIT: Also, science evolves over time. It may appear like scientists contradict each other and change their opinions every now and then but that is because the situations change all the time as well. Scientific researches are constantly challenged and debated against because that is how the process of science just works.

The approach of "scientists were wrong if we do as they say and the end doesnt come"is for really stupid people, which unfortunately there is a lot around.

As for myself, growing up in the 80's I remember all the problem with the ozone layer and all the efforts that were made to avoid using certain types of gases that we knew at that time were harmful and it seems to me today the layer is almost rebuilt. Although I never studied the subject to understand how much of those efforts were relevant for the layer to rebuilt itself, for me it's a clear sign the scientists were correct and we did right in follow their instructions.

But today, with social media and other stuff, and a MUCH MORE corrupt and one sided media, it's more difficult to make an assessment on climate change. Also stop using certain types of deodorants as much easier than in a few years cease to use fossil fuels completely as expert Greta wants.

In the end, I could maybe summarize like this:

If you want to make people change and accept your ideas, you need to understand that you need to keep clean, never lie, never hide data, learn how to rebuke their rebuttals, never nick pick. You need to keep the high ground all the time and never try to cause division, separating people into groups like "the deniers", and on top of that, make your cause a scientific cause and not an escuse to insert OTHER political objectives into the discussion.

Based on the replies you and others give in this thread I want to make a quick summary of your thoughts (I don't want to single you out on this entirely but your post is just a great hook, please don't be mad at me).

How it really is:

A) Scientists claim that humanity will suffer severely if we don't change.
B) Governments declare rules and regulations to help face the dangers
C) Industries adapt, new technologies arise, efficiency is increased, less resources are used
D) The end doesn't come, scientists are wrong

How it appears to you:

A) Scientists claim that humanity will suffer severely if we don't change.
B) The end doesn't come, scientists are wrong

You may not always see the consequences but technology is always on the verge of becoming more efficient and less resource consuming, and this process is propelled by the science behind it. Nowadays researchers try to push biodegradable packaging solutions for example to stop wasting our oceans. Power generation from fossil fuels become exchanged against natural resources like wind, water and the sun. Car manufactores work on car engines with electrical or hydrogen cells to stop polluting the air. The change is happening, my friend. We still have a long road ahead of us, however, and the more people are behin this change, the easier it will be for everyone.

Once humanity has solved the climate problem, there will always be people who close their eyes and ears about all the small changes and milestones that were reached on the journey. Those people will still say that scientiests were always wrong. But that is simply because humanity listens to them.

EDIT: Also, science evolves over time. It may appear like scientists contradict each other and change their opinions every now and then but that is because the situations change all the time as well. Scientific researches are constantly challenged and debated against because that is how the process of science just works.

The problem with this line of thinking is that we never do nearly as much as the scientists claim we need to do.  Yet, the doom doesn't come.  That's the fundamental problem with this whole "climate emergency" stuff.  Scientists announce if we don't do X by year Y, we'll see problem Z.  Humans institute 1/4 of X by year Y+5, but problem Z never occurs.  It's classic alarmism, and it is directly harmful to the environment because it kills the credibility of science around the subject.  

Scientists said that tides will rise, coasts will be flooded, islands will disappear, people will be forced to move if we don't change. There will be many more natural disasters like tornados and floods, former green places will be deserted and arid, millions of plants and animals will be extinct.These are the problems Z you mentioned.

We can already see all of these problems Z today. If we don't change, it will just get worse from this point on. This is what the OP is all about - the damage is already done. Now we look at how to keep the damage as low as possible.

However, we can't just turn everything upside down just with the snap of a finger, we need a lot of time to adapt to this change, therefore the European Union decided to reduce the CO2 exhaustion by 95% by the year 2050. Why so long? Because there are millions of jobs and lives attached to the current situation. Circumstances, infratsructures, industries and mentalities need time to change and the people must slowly learn to deal with these new situations. This just takes time.

Do you honestly believe that scientists, in the long term, have been reasonably accurate in their predictions of what would happen with respect to the environment?  If so, you need to take a step back and look with a critical eye at the last couple decades of this stuff.  There's not really anything to debate here.  The facts show that most of the public proclamations made by scientists in this area have been incorrect.  That's just the way it is.  

It does seem that there is important environmental work to be done, and there probably are real possible problems.  But, scientists constantly running to the nearest microphone and telling everyone how bad it will be end up making the problems worse because people stop listening to the scientists.  Like experts in every field, they have an obligation to humanity to present accurate information.  As it stands now, they seem to be working against the environment, albeit indirectly.