I don't claim to be an expert, but I'd question a few things, such as:
Where has the CO2 been measured?
In what way is the lumber industry taken into account, as photosynthesis is responsible for turning CO2 back into oxygen, and one is to assume there was a lot more photosynthesis going on in history then now. I'd say it is likely to be largely responsible for the rise in CO2 as opposed to industrial emissions. Even though industrial emissions is the part used for political leverage.
If the reduction of green/forests in the world is responsible for most of the CO2 increase, wouldn't it be stabling out greatly as most lumber industry is now becoming largely dependable of the lumber they grow themselves?
And that's just the first questions I'd ask. Now I'm not saying it's bad to seek out methods that produce less emmisions. But I'd also like to question the predictions, taking into account my first questions.
Quite frankly, I'm not convinced at all the world is becoming unlivable.