Agreed, but my comment was in regards to AGW. We were discussing the morals of our excess emissions and so I was strictly referring to as it pertained to AGW. No doubt nature has put tons of CO2 into the atmosphere via volcanic activity. There has also been huge climate swings due to such activity as well.
Notice how he blithely puts this out with never a thought towards the problem he's facing.
Volcano goes off, world cools. So much for the warming effect from all those green house gases they put out, the particulate bombs the shit out of the temperature. Brilliant job not noting the complete lack of a warming effect from Vocanic eruptions.
While you're jizzing yourself over your knowledge of a scant 400 thousand years of CO2 history, please notice that 80% of that period has been spent covered in ice, to Kansas.
It is silly to assume that all this extra CO2 will not affect the environment. Yes CO2 levels have been higher in the past, but that was in the past! The ecosystems were different back then, there were different plants and animals so it is a flawed argument to say that the effects won't be damaging in the present. Lack of evidence does not mean lack od risk.
It's possible there will be a 9.8 earthquake in Los Angeles. We should immediately raze every building in the state and establish building codes that can survive such an event!
Shit happens, altering your life in any significant way for something with no evidence it will ever happen is really stupid. This isn't like buying a gun in case you get mugged, people actually get mugged, it's a statistical possibility based on documented observations, crime statistics. Something like cap and trade is jumping out the window from a perfectly good sky scraper just in case there's an earthquake later. You wouldn't kill yourself just to avoid the possibility of dying, so why cause economic distress just to avoid the possibility of it?
We know it's good for plants, we know it's bad for people around six thousand ppm, we'll never hit a thousand. We have a largely discredited theory based purely on conjecture with not one single instance of observable cause and effect that says we might get a few meters up in sea level in return for doubling the food output of the remaining land. There is zero evidence it's bad for the planet, zero evidence it's bad for humanity. If the unproven and questionable theory with manufactured evidence proves to be true despite the worst intentions of it's proponents, humanity still has a net gain. Certain real estate loses value, a few countries disappear, but the world will be more productive as a whole by far.