What you say isn't the same as my admittedly extreme "Mother Nature sheds a tear." But a phrase like "the ecosystem collapses out from under us" implies that c

What you say isn't the same as my admittedly extreme "Mother Nature sheds a tear." But a phrase like "the ecosystem collapses out from under us" implies that climate change is a total and unambiguous attack on "the ecosystem." This is the assumption that I often feel is inadequately justified. For example, CO2 is used for photosynthesis in plants. This Nature article concludes: > Under elevated CO2 most plant species show higher rates of photosynthesis, increased growth, decreased water use and lowered tissue concentrations of nitrogen and protein. Rising CO2 over the next century is likely to affect both agricultural production and food quality. The effects of elevated CO2 are not uniform; some species, particularly those that utilize the C4 variant of photosynthesis, show less of a response to elevated CO2 than do other types of plants. Rising CO2 is therefore likely to have complex effects on the growth and composition of natural plant communities. http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-rising-atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108 http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-... When articles and arguments acknowledge both positive and negative effects of something, I trust them more.