But is that the apocalypse? I hate the fact that we're destabilizing the environment, but humans (and wildlife) are pretty good at adaptation. Our ancestors have obviously survived massive extinction events in the past.

Survivorship bias. We look at our history and always survive the crisis. Because the ones that don't aren't around to see the failure.

Most species have gone extinct.

Personally, I do not believe climate change can kill us off. The worst case predictions are pretty dire (and beware the worst case makes the IPCC look tame--there is not enough data on methane hydrates for it to be in the IPCC model, but the worst case estimates are worse than the IPCC estimates and they will probably stack.) But I consider extinction likely because we can move around. An animal that loses 90% of it's habitat loses 90% of it's population but the survivors are pretty much the same as before. But are those humans who will be killed off just going to sit there?

Yes, obviously, but our ancestors weren't human then.

Sure, and they didn't speak English either, but I don't see how that's relevant.

You wrote "humans are good at adaptation, case in point, mass extinction survival". I reply "they weren't human then". The relevance is direct.

Humans: by far the most populous large animals on the planet, thriving in by far the most diverse set of environments in and around the planet, are clearly good at adaptation. The fact that Eskimos and Bedouin and uncontacted amazonian tribes are all the same species is rather remarkable.

If anything, we have a much better shot at surviving the next mass extinction than we had at surviving prior ones, now that we have so many advantages.

I probably won't survive it because I'm a smooth brained weakling, but some humans surely will

I'm not arguing that humans are not adaptable, I'm just pointing out a fallacy in your original argument. Whether humans are adaptable or not is another matter.