Or how about the carbon footprint of very cold countries being drastically reduced because there would be less fossil fuel needed for heating .
I already agreed with you that the current levels or even a little more are probably ok. Some benefits, some drawbacks, but likely not terrible.
The fact is that higher levels of CO2 would be quite beneficial; there are virtually no drawbacks to higher CO2 levels. High levels of CO2 are not harmful to man. US submariners spend over six months each year in atmospheres consisting of 8000-9000ppm CO2 with no adverse effects.
It’s what is going to happen decades from now that is the issue if we keep this rate of co2 increase going.
That is easy to answer. What happened when CO2 levels were very much higher than now? The Earth's atmosphere once consisted of over 90% CO2. Plants loved it. When CO2 levels fall below a critical value, plants do not survive.
When we worry about CO2 levels at 200-400ppm, we are at the very bottom of the historical scale.
Also, your still just making claims. Where is the data that backs your position?
No sir, you are making claims without evidence and data.
The posted graphs regarding climate change represent conclusions drawn from various data sources, which are then presented as facts. They are not. The actual data those conclusions were based upon have not been released so that real scientists can verify, replicate, and falsify the data. Neither have the complete records of measurement techniques, methods and instrumentation.
Real climate science would welcome critical evaluation of methods, procedures and data, instead of screaming about the horrible global warming "deniers."
Sadly, climate science has succumbed to political economics.