CO₂ is a precious and much coveted resource in nature. It's predicted to become all sequestered under ground eventually, on a billion-year timescale (making it quite troublesome for life!). More pressingly, when it comes to plant life RIGHT NOW, we're still dangerously close to CO₂ starvation levels. The current ~400 parts-per-million are a good deal healthier than the ~180 ppm we've had throughout Quaternary (which…
The current vegetation is adapted well to the CO2 levels before industrialisation, that is about 300ppm CO2. The change in CO2-content is actually detrimental to some plants. Furthermore, the quick temperature change is going to wipe out large eco systems. The question isn't, what is the optimal CO2 concentration for single species, but about the health of the eco systems we are living in. We are about to wipe out la…
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.