Bennyhop
So given A + B
\∴ hence ► "ALL BAD"?
--------------------------------------------------------
Huh?
What is the logical basis of that conclusion, from what seems to be a easy-peasy syllogism.
That is not logical science.
What this could be? A post Hiroshoma human arrogance that we can geo-engineer the planet.
--------------------------------------------------------
Consider these two premises, that both escape your simplified construct, and serve as the constraint to the debate.
C: that throughout the Paleozoic the CO² levels in the atmosphere were more than
ten times the levels they are today. (and life thrived!)
D: that 99.5% plus of all known carbon that there is on earth, has since the Paleozoic been 'consumed' by life, now exists as dolomite, limestone & marble. The Carbon "cycle" does not iterate. It is a one way street. When we consume that last 0.5% of Carbon all plant life dies on earth (in about 50 million years).
Now to me the outcome of D: does seem catastrophic. But a true scientist would tell me for sure.
Catastrophic, unless we can get substantial CO² back into the system, and hence too, the atmosphere.
