I assume you realize that changing the argument to whether or not we can feed the world's population is a straw man argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
However, I'll entertain it for a moment.
From that same wikipedia page:
There is little on that page that even mentions "food" or "feed", and while that list of climate scientists who do not support the idea of anthropogenic climate change appears impressive on the wikipedia page, those scientists are only 2-3% of the climate scientists. That 2-3% could be right. We do not know. However, back to feeding the world's population.
As I see it, there are several problems with the idea that we cannot feed the world's population.
First, what form of agriculture are they speaking of? "Modern "monoculture" which depletes the soil and leaves it basically useless? That is something Monsanto would like so that we can all become dependent on Monstanto's products more than some farmers already are.
In addition, there are other methods of farming. If you can find a copy of
Nature Conservancy Magazine Fall 2017 issue, there is an interesting article entitled "Maya Gold" that begins on page 28. In it, they detail farmers within the modern day Mayan culture on the Yucatan Peninsula who are moving away from modern agricultural techniques, I.e., monoculture, back to more ancient methods.
Instead of planting just a monoculture, corn, in their fields, they plant corn, beans, and squash. The corn plants provide support for the bean vines. The beans take nitrogen from the atmosphere and collect it in nodules in their roots which is then returned to the soil and feeds the corn and the squash. The squash, with its large leaves and the fact that it grows close to the ground, keeps the soil from drying out. The fact that there is a variety of crops in the same field cuts down on injurious insects. As reported in the article, the farmers moving to this method report increases in their crop yields of some 35-50%
There are varieties of corn, beans, and squash that grow in various climates and provide the same kind of benefits to each other when grown together. I suspect that the bigger issue would be to convince modern farmers that they would see a benefit from this type of agriculture.
Not only that, though, the modern Mayans plant shade trees in the fields where their cattle graze - a cooler cattle herd requires less energy and therefore produces better meat. Any plants that the cattle do not graze on, the farmers go into the field and chop them up, rather than using herbicides, so that they can form a natural compost which enriches the field for the next generation of crops.
All of this leads the Mayan farmers to significantly reduced clear cutting of rain forest - which has a side benefit - the aspect that the carbon sequestration of the rain forest is left to help mitigate atmospheric CO2.
As I see it, whatever actions are taken on the problem du jour, it must be done with careful consideration as to its immediate impacts and the impact that it has on the future.
Personally, I do not see that giving up is an option.
