sorry for the double post

Sorry, earth will not easily turn into venus. Venus had no tectonic plates develop, something which is important in earths carbon cycle, this is a major CO₂ sink. Plate tectonics have lead to the most extreme ice age, where earth completely froze over to the equator, about 800 million years ago.

On venus and earth both CO₂ is released by volcanic activity from the planets inside. But while on earth with waethering and plate tectonics a system exists to put carbon back into the earth, no similar process exists on venus. So more and more CO₂ is released there and never reduced. This is the reason Venus got so hot. Also as the gas is accumulating the atmosphere got thicker (as nothing is removed), so it has much, much more pressure than the earths atmosphere.

There's enough information (+ disinformation and misinformation) in the world to support probably almost any viewpoint if that's what you want, and the chances are that you've come to an incorrect conclusion due to personal bias, mistakes, misunderstandings, incomplete information, or some other reason that's possibly hard to recognize. In general, things seem to have a tendency to turn out well one way or another, possibly through hardship, but the chances are that 'the end of the world as we know it' simply isn't true. Yes, there's worry and for good reasons too, but things will probably turn out OK. It's just not in the interests of anyone (capable of affecting the future significantly) to screw things up utterly.

We're not there yet, but could get closer when the permafrost melts. 

A temperate lowland rainforest environment existed at a palaeolatitude of about 82° S during the Turonian–Santonian age (92 to 83 million years ago). A climate model simulation shows that the reconstructed temperate climate at this high latitude requires a combination of both atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations of 1,120–1,680 parts per million by volume and a vegetated land surface without major Antarctic glaciation, highlighting the important cooling effect exerted by ice albedo under high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

During the Cretaceous Hot Greenhouse 92 million years ago, global surface temperatures rose to around 85 degrees Fahrenheit (29 celcius)
Current global temperature is 59F / 15c.

The current global average concentration of carbon dioxide (CO ₂) in the atmosphere is 421 ppm (0.04%) as of May 2022. This is an increase of 50% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, up from 280 ppm during the 10,000 years prior to the mid-18th century.

We're basically pumping all stored carbon into the atmosphere by digging up coal and oil. But a green Antarctica is still a long long way off.
But yes we'll be way past deep shit if global temperature rises 14 degrees!

(Not gonna happen, even if we do nothing, estimates show 800ppm is the max we'll get to)

Never said it would be easy, neither did Stephan Hawking in the livescience article. Yet as for things Earth can recover from, nuclear winter is easy.
Earth might have the same fate as Venus, but on a Billion year time scale (as the sun gets hotter)

As puny humans we can make it a lot more uncomfortable for ourselves.

The same livescience article had climatologists declare it as hyperbolic. And yeah, once the sun is expanding things will change more drastically, but that is billions of years away.

And yes, we can and we do make it a lot more uncomfortable for ourselves. I count war also as that, but climate change as well.

There are estimates the world's militaries contribute 5.5% of greenhouse gasses, nvm all the destruction and emissions needed to rebuild it all again.

And all that time and money wasted on killing each other could be used to make live a whole lot more comfortable. With the latest Ukraine and Gaza war, 2.44 trillion spend on wars in 2023. Nuclear Fusion total investment stands at 7.1 Billion, 0.3% of military spending in 2023.

We can't kill the Earth (yet) but we've become very efficient in killing each other :(

These are the dipshits lecturing everyone else.  

Yes. There is some correlation between wealth and carbon emmission. Poor people just simply cannot emit as much. But even rich people can reduce their emmissions, but it is with personal sacrifices. For instance a poor person probably lives in a small flat in a house with multiple flats, which reduces the carbon emissions and land usage. Rich people could do that as well, but mostly choose to live in a big villa with generous grounds, so lots of emissions and land use (which reduces the lands ability to act as a carbon sink).

Well, one of the best ways to reduce co2 emissions if that is ones goal is to kill people. 

Choose the die option. Mostly since I always choose death when presented in a way that me dying won't have a noticeable negative impact on the people around me. Fell like the world in this scenario is so much shit that the small positive effect I potentially could bring is negligible.

Most depictions of post-apocalyptic worlds are both more bleak and at the same time more heroic than I think a real such scenario. Focus is put on individual efforts having larger impacts making it attractive as a fantasy, putting oneself into that heroic role.