[gutnor]

> Interesting contradiction isn't it? Our slowly rising atmospheric CO2 level today is just reaching 400 ppm, and this is claimed by some to be disastrous.

There is no contradiction other than with the reframing that global warming deniers use to communicate with their less educated members. Anybody with 2 working neurons realises that fit for life and fit for human are 2 distinct concept, otherwise they can jump in the thriving ocean and live like a fish.

In general actual debate are around either if global warming happens or not ( which is pretty much settled ), if CO2 is the main factor or not ( also pretty much settled, although some other gas are investigated ), the actual effect on human ( pretty much settled that it is going to cause grief, the debate is around knowing if that affect us in the first world yes or no and the timescale )

The bitter debates (the actual contradictions) are around what to do without destroying your economy, not sacrifying your economy for a problem that will not really affect you and position your economy to profit from it.

[alphapapa]

It is telling that your response is laced with pejoratives and begging the question. This seems like a common pattern. If it weren't for the fact that the actions that may be taken, using this issue as justification, could destroy economies and greatly reduce quality of life for billions of people, it would be comical that you then go on to talk about "actual debate."