It's not an unpopular question so much as an irrelevant one: An ice age a few hundred years out is not much of a concern if within decades the seas are going to

It's not an unpopular question so much as an irrelevant one: An ice age a few hundred years out is not much of a concern if within decades the seas are going to devour big chunks of our habitable land via melting sea ice, and the rising temperatures make agriculture much harder on the remaining land while also making large sections of the remaining land uninhabitable due to high temps. After a while of that, people will be begging for an ice age. If we want to fight off an ice age we should just keep the temperature roughly where it is (or perhaps where it was a couple decades ago, because the current increased temps are already causing big problems) "What if atmospheric carbon is good" and similar questions stopped being reasonable once we started observing direct negative impact of global warming right in front of our faces. Like, sure, there are probably advantages to it, but there are advantages to all sorts of negative things - sickle cell anemia grants partial resistance to some nasty diseases, but It's Also Sickle Cell Anemia.