You've pulled a number out of the sky, claimed it was "optimal". You use highly unscientific words and then resort to ridiculous hypothetical situations.
We are at optimum CO2 levels (according to you) and yet the UN (and others) say the Earth is boiling (while the NH has above average frozen participation on the ground).
BTW, in green house scenarios, anything below 300ppm is considered a "no growth" environment for plants.
Dax wtf are you even talking about? At no point did I ever declare some optimal CO2 concentration. In fact I said who cares? And optimum for who/what?
I said the baseline (please tell me you know the difference between baseline and optimal?) is ~400 ppm, and that concentrations above that have been proven detrimental to human beings.
Have you considered reading for comprehension or nah just keep on truckin?
LMAO, again, if your ilk is going to declare that we have too much C02, then the optimal level should be known, shouldn't it? How can you declare that we have too much, or "more" (LMAO) CO2 and that's bad, (again using the established BAC baseline that "more" is bad) without knowing what the correct or optimal level should be?
As far as the rest goes, you're just pulling ridiculous scenarios that have absolutely no bearing on reality.
So again, the earth is barely clinging to a C02 content level that keeps plants out of a no growth state (William Happers deceleration that the Earth is in C02 deficit, not surplus), yet #blueanon scientists and the #blueanon beloved UN is saying the Earth is boiling because we have too much C02 or "more" (which per BAC is bad).