OK lets talk about the evidence. Do you think a measured rise of 1.2 C in 140 years is a matter of grave concern?
Atmospheric CO2 has risen from 250 ppm to 400 ppm since the 1950's. However the main relevance of CO2 is as a plant food - I reckon I can actually see the difference in Britain - wooded areas are flourishing in a way they didn't when I was a kid.
The so-called greenhouse effect is not what warms greenhouses. A little thought will reveal that warm soil heats the atmosphere in greenhouses, but the greenhouse stops the heat being removed by convection - nothing to do with re-radiation of the energy.
Talk about these if you want to talk about the science, and then perhaps we can move on to Venus' atmosphere, and other related things.
I think that the global rise of temperature is an average and that could very well could be a concern. As we've seen in various countries, if it's cooler in one section of the planet and vastly warmer in another, it causes all kinds of massive problems. England's fires. Newfoundland. The problem so much of global warming and climate change I think we're discovering is the instability of the Earth's climate from droughts to ongoing downpours that never seem to end, from hurricanes, to flash freezing. Massive snowstorms to no snow at all. The environment is not used to huge changes. A great documentary from "The Nature of Things" some years ago "Silent Sentinels" I believe it was called spoke of the massive 98%+ destruction of the coral in the Indian Ocean from heating in a short span of time. Nature creates very unique ecological systems allowing a mass web of bio-diversity to exist. That becomes a huge problem when we see climate change effect the way it works.
You're absolutely right that C02 is the oxygen of plants. Hotter soil will certainly provide some species more ability to grow. But the question, has always been for me, not so much of "Well universally this is good so its good".. but understanding how cyclical nature works in regional areas.
For example, if you have an entire bio-diverse jungle environment and the temperature and waterfall turns it nearly overnight into a savannah or a desert, one could argue that desert creatures would arise from those soils and regional climates, but at what cost?
Shouldn't the focus truly be on a kind of stabilization?
After all, that's one of the fair assessments made about the economy.. the idea that the Great Reset doesn't get rid of wealth but it does remove it from the economic ecosystem of the regional areas is very much of concern. Why is it we can make that one understanding when it comes to the health of a community under money, but not under climate change?
That's a rhetorical question not necessarily one for you to answer David.
P.S. By the way, sorry if I was testy in last week. It was pretty hectic. I need to learn not to post when I'm overly stressed with other things LOL