Between 135 million years ago and 65 million years ago these levels occured at least 3 times. The consequences were astounding, global temperatures we at least 10 degrees Centigrade warmer than today, there was no ice on the planet and one of the consequences of this fact was that there was no Thermohaline circulation, (ocean current that circulates around the globe), so resulting in an almost total loss of oxygen in the oceans. No oxygen at anything below about 10 metres meant that there was virtually no animal life. There was though on organisim that flourished during those periods, this is phytoplankton which uses CO2 and sunlight to photosynthecise. When these little organisims died they simply sank to the ocean floors and with no oxygen to promote decay and no animal life to eat them they just stayed there until moved/buried by continental drift.

Over several million years billions of billions of billions of the phytoplankton built up to kilometres in depth. These phytoplankton achieved two goals though, first they absorbed so much CO2 that levels fell to under 300 ppm so giving us a temperate climate, and secondly, they are the source of all the oil and gas found in the world tday.

We don't need 1200 to 1500 ppm C02 in the atmosphere as most of the planet will become uninhabitable for today's mamals and this includes mankind.

(We can see in the backend that it's the same IP address)

The government is telling us to hand over money to save ourselves, based on their 'interpretation' of a theory that nobody understands. It's the exact same thing the Catholic church did for 100s of years.

If you already align with the political/religious ideology, you are not likely to question the science/reality. And you are quite willing to obey & sacrifice to atone for your sins that you didn't know you had 'til they told you!

Lead is actually a pollutant that has been proven to cause real harm. Co2 is not.

Weigh up the two interests.

The oil exec represents private industry, all he asks is to be free to continue to operate, providing the products people want to buy at a price they want to pay, and for the company to keep and spend some of it's hard earned profits as they see fit. I can't call that evil, because that's what I want too.

The politician/activist simply wants vast amounts of unearned income and power signed over to them at the stroke of a pen, in the name of a 'righteous cause' that they cannot even begin to explain scientifically.

Anthropogenic Co2 is exactly the same as natural Co2.

which is produced by respiration in FAR higher quantities than human activity. Plants thrive on it no matter what the source.

Hence most scientists do not label Co2 as 'pollution' since this means every breathing creature is a polluter, and every green plant thrives on that pollution. The whole basis of life on Earth is pollution based? So I don't think it's a 'blatantly false argument' to point out the absurdity of this?

I'm not suggesting pushing for 1200-1500 ppm- and this is considered far higher than anything we could achieve anyway- but what sort of 'certain disaster' do you have in mind? runaway warming? an ice age? somewhere in-between?

Consider that the Ordovician ice age had Co2 levels of around 4000 ppm.

I'd have to ask for some citation of a study verifying the assertion that the "planet is greener due to our added CO2" – I'm not necessarily disputed there are regions that will benefit to some degree, but the net effect on global climate is what is at issue.

Nor am I saying there is a "difference" in the basic structure of naturally occurring CO2 and CO2 from burning fossil carbon. I've never heard of that "myth." The issue is the rapid release of the fossilized carbon into the atmosphere and its effect on climate – which can already be seen. Acidifying and warming oceans, Arctic sea ice thinning and retreat, rapidly shrinking glaciers, persistent drought, damaged forests, altered hydrological patterns, a steady trending up in global temperatures, etc.

The planet isn't a gardener's greenhouse, and while I'm sure you're not suggesting it, to push for 1200-1500 ppm in atmospheric CO2 as some grand global experiment to enhance plant growth is surely a hubris that could only invite certain disaster.

This is not a myth, it's basic science and well understood.

The optimum level is around 1200-1500 ppm for most plants (ask a greenhouse gardener) far higher than today's 380-something

And it is in fact true that our planet is already a little greener than it would otherwise be, due to our added Co2.

A common myth is that our Co2 is somehow different from natural Co2- it is not. I think the confusion comes from the word 'carbon' which sounds dirty, and the intuitive feeling that if humans produce it, it HAS to be bad?