At first reading, I agree with most of what you have written here. Warmer is better; CO2 is good for plants, and current levels of the much-maligned trace atmospheric gas are certainly no danger to man or most other living things, at least AFAIK. In any event, CO2 levels are (comparatively) quite high in buildings, submarines and other enclosed spaces where air-breathing creatures are present. From what I understand, humans routinely work in such spaces where CO2 levels approach 5000ppm.

As I see it, there is no credible evidence that mankind has, can, or will be able to affect the global climate in any substantial manner. If our species ever did gain such an enormous capability, methinks it would more likely be directed against a looming ice age, than against any hypothetical runaway greenhouse effect and/or global warming.

I see that the person to whom my question was addressed has not responded, and that is fair enough, I suppose, but it seems elementary to me that before embarking on such an enormous venture as is seemingly the goal of the AGW proponents and other climate alarmists, one ought to be quite clear as to the objective of such an undertaking, to say nothing of the costs and risks involved. If something should go awry, is there a Plan B?
Thanks for your reply, and also for your indefatigable efforts to shed some clear light on this contentious issue.

S