The planet has had CO2 levels 10 times higher than today without runaway temperatures.
When? What professor of earth history fed you this lie?
Water vapour is more of a greenhouse gas than CO2.
This is true. If we were putting as much water as CO2 into the atmosphere, we'd have an even bigger problem. But we're not doing that.
That big shiny thing in the sky is the main driver of our climate.
Technically, the energy balance of planet Earth is the main driver of our climate. The sun is the big source of energy in, but CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are what controls the energy out.
CO2 is essential for all life on earth to exist. If CO2 went below 150ppm, all life on earth would cease to exist.
Our atmosphere is a carefully balanced system. Too much or too little of any major component is a problem. Taking out half of the water would also be bad. So would half of the nitrogen. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.
400 parts per million is 4 molecules out of 10,000. Adding 1 or 2 more molecules will not send the planet into a fiery death.
You don't think that a 50% increase in CO2 concentrations would be a problem? Moments ago you argued that a 50% reduction would end all life on earth. Am I understanding you correctly that you believe lowering CO2 concentrations would be catastrophic, but raising them isn't a problem?
CO2 is plant food. Commercial growers add CO2 to levels of 1400 - 1600 ppm to aid plant growth.
Manure is plant food, too, but you don't want too much of it in your drinking water, do you? Lots of things that are beneficial in small doses are harmful in larger doses.
Every single solution to "climate change" involves higher taxes or energy prices. This will hurt low income people the most.
Not every solution, but many of them do require carbon emitters to pay for the full cost of their business model. No other industry on earth is completely exempt from cleaning up its own pollution. How did oil companies get that awesome benefit? We don't complain about the harm to low-income people when a nuclear reactor melts down, we just expect the company to clean up their mess.
There is no proven correlation to warmer temperatures and bad weather. It simply gets a little warmer.
No correlation to bad weather, agreed. But a definite correlation to
different weather. Better in some places, worse in others. Just like when you're experiencing a drought that water doesn't disappear, it just ends up somewhere other than where you want it to be. Changes to the system are difficult for people to adjust to.
Warm is not bad. The closer you get to the equator, the more abundant life becomes.
Until it gets too hot, of course. Making everywhere on earth a little bit warmer is probably fine for most places. Some places will get too hot and turn into lifeless deserts. Some places that are currently very cold will get too warm for their current life forms, and those life forms will go extinct. Animals and plants need the right temperature and they can't always just relocate to a better place. Forests don't have feet, trees don't migrate very fast.
Do some reading on solar minimums...based on 400 years of sunspot data, we may be heading towards another mini ice age in the next couple decades. If that happens, food shortages will be severe due to shortened growing seasons, and that will cause more trouble than any amount of warming.
I agree that an ice age would be a bad thing, but that's not what anyone is predicting. Where did this info come from?
