And yes, our car has 110 HP (81 kW). It has a top speed of 120 mph. It gets up to 60 mpg. I don't see any reason to call this one under-powered or garbage. We are driving about 25,000 miles per year with the car, and there never has been a situation where I felt that there was a serious lack of power. It even has a towing hitch and is licensed for pulling up to 3400 lbs.
Or did I misunderstood you completely?
And there I was thinking that the free exchange of thoughts and ideas implies that you can freely state your thoughts and ideas? Those are mine. And my thinking is that to pinpoint a (geologically or historically) short term trend, it is sufficient to look at a short time period. I don't know how the climate on Earth will be in one million years, and my interest into the weather forecast for the year 10002024 is mainly academic. But I am very interested in the next 30 years, because that's what I expect to experience myself, and I am quite interested in the climate in 2100, because that's what my children maybe, and my grandchildren hopefully will experience. And for that, looking back 30 or 80 years, is very intriguing, while the climate at the time Homo neanderthalensis appeared for the first time is less interesting.
Humans have added about 700 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in the last 120 years. You can look up the yearly mining of coal, lignite and oil since 1900 until today to compare them to the increase in CO2 content in the atmosphere, if you are not sure where this increase comes from. This is equivalent to 270 billion metric tons of pure Carbon. Your average plant contains about 15% carbon. So this amounts to about 1.6 trillion tons of plant mass, which you need to add to the world, just to offset the current increase. All harvests right now on the world amount to about 5 billion tons of plant mass per year. This amount you have to add would be equivalent to 300 years of world harvests, of which none can be used for human consumption, because you urgently need the carbon to stay sequestered.
Additionally, plants growing better in higher CO2 are mostly dicotyledons, while monocotyledons don't profiteer as much. There have been experiments where, depending on the CO2 levels, dicotyledons will suppress monocotyledons at higher CO2 levels, while at lower CO2 levels, monocotyledons outcompete the dicotyledons. Sadly, with the exception of the potato, most of our food providing crops are monocotyledons, like wheat, rice,bananas or corn. Dicotyledons give mostly fruits and some vegetables, but not the starch rich crops, which yield the highest harvests. The same goes for temperature: Higher temperatures are preferring dicotyledons, while moderate temperatures are better for monocotyledons. There is a reason why most food is grown away from the equator in the moderate climate zones, and why the most people are living there.
What you are doing with higher CO2 levels and higher average temperatures is basically killing off all our crops and forcing us to really fast find new, dicotyledon based food sources.
While I agree, that higher CO2 levels will increase plant growth in general, it will not increase the amount of food we can grow. For that to happen, we are planting the wrong crops.
No one claimed that climate change will destroy the planet. Or wipe out Life on Earth. It will affect humans. It will affect human living conditions. It will affect human civilisation. It will affect human housing, human harvests, human migration patterns.
Earth will happily spin around Sun for the next few billion years. Some kind of Life will evolve which can cope with the new conditions of Earth's surface. But it might include far less humans as of today, and not all of the missing humans will die peacefully after a long and fulfilled life.
Now the milk is spilled, and the government (e.g. the judiciary branch of government) is tasked with sorting out the mess.
We are each entitled to our own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own facts. -- Patrick Moynihan