I actually agree with you. Perhaps the confusion stems from my too-vague use of "we". Your "we" (understandably) refers to humans, who indeed stand much to los

I actually agree with you. Perhaps the confusion stems from my too-vague use of "we". Your "we" (understandably) refers to humans, who indeed stand much to lose by dramatic CO₂ swings. At least on a suitably mayfly time scale. My "we" meant more "life on this planet", without as much anthropomorphic bias. Periods of increased warmth and easy access to carbon — the two are historically highly correlated, though not synonymous — are an overall boon to life, referred to as "warm periods", "climatic optimums", "life explosions", etc. This despite the ecosystem upheavals that accompany such large-scale climatic changes being detrimental to incumbent organisms. No argument there. Coupled with the polarized political nature of the topic, I suspect this difference in "we" resulted in people reading too much into my comment, if you take the time to re-read it. My stance on short-term human-centric status-quo-preserving actions is probably not that different from yours, although I do find broader perspectives and facts helpful in framing rational discourse.