> Increasing the temperatures and increases in carbon mean more food and more habitable land. " More CO2 actually decreases the nutritional content of grown fo

> Increasing the temperatures and increases in carbon mean more food and more habitable land. " More CO2 actually decreases the nutritional content of grown food. Also, if the climate changes faster than animals can adapt, it can lead to a collapse of a number of food chains that many people depend on. Finally, I'm not sure why you assume more land would be habitable when some currently habitable zones are on the brink of becoming uninhabitable. You just seem to assume that we'll end up better off because…? > Nor have I seen evidence it in fact is changing at any alarming rate (and I worked in this space for a while). Surely you agree that temperatures are changing faster than at any point in history that didn't involve some ecological catastrophe. > Recall history class, when the North American continent was covered in a sheet of ice. Recall history class, when you learned the largest dessert in the world was a green oasis until the last few thousand years. So your argument is, "there have been significant natural climate changes that caused ecological upheaval, therefore we shouldn't worry about this climate change that is also sure to cause ecological upheaval "? I honestly have no idea why you would find that reassuring. Best case projections are still quite disruptive, and worst-case projections are catastrophic. Maybe a little more caution is warranted when the survival of humanity may be at stake, don't you think? > You want to know how I know the authoritative statement "Second, humans are in fact the primary cause." is unknowable? Because we only have ~100 years of measured data. You really need to read some more if you think we don't have evidence of the temperature record before that.