However, we do know that vast amounts of co2 existed in the past, and you and I are living proof things worked out quite well......
At any rate, my only claim is that the earth has already experienced more amounts of CO2 than what we are doing today.
Unlike some, I refuse to speculate or fear monger the issue. I can only point to the past....
I recommend this Book:
In Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn?t Worry about Global Warming, Thomas Gale Moore, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, says no. Despite many dire predictions, global warming?should it occur?would benefit most people.
Moore looks at historical evidence and finds that the temperature of the earth has fluctuated dramatically over the past 200,000 years. And he reports that mankind has "prospered during warm periods and suffered during cold ones." For example, agriculture was made possible by warmer climates. "From its origins around 8000 b.c.," writes Moore, "agriculture spread northward, appearing in Greece about 6000 b.c., Hungary in 5000 b.c., France in 4500 b.c., and Poland in 4250 b.c. Is it chance that this northward spread followed a gradual warming of the climate that made agriculture more feasible at higher latitudes?"
Life spans also increased in periods characterized by warmer weather. Moore looks at life expectancy from 8000 b.c. to a.d. 1400 and finds that the "warmest periods, the Neolithic, Bronze Age, and the thirteenth century, enjoyed the longest life spans of the entire period."
Would mankind benefit from higher temperatures during the next several decades or centuries? That is, would history repeat itself? Moore argues that it would. He predicts that increased carbon dioxide emissions, coupled with warmer autumns and winters, would boost agricultural production, reduce heating costs, improve transportation, and cut fatalities. Moreover, many people simply prefer warmer weather.
Even if such benefits were not realized, it would still be foolish to impose regulations aimed at curbing global warming. Cutting carbon dioxide emissions by a third?as some environmentalists have advocated?would decrease world economic output and wealth much more than would the negative effects of global warming.
Moore urges policymakers to take a sensible look at global warming, one based on sound scientific and economic reasoning, not emotion and hysteria. "Except for those measures that make sense in any case, such as eliminating subsidies to energy and energy use," concludes Moore, "Congress should stand fast against any steps to limit greenhouse gas emissions."