Pants-of-dog wrote:CO2 is toxic to animals.
Not in any plausible atmospheric concentration.
So an atmosphere high in CO2 would actually have little animal life even if it had more plant life.
Only if by "high" you mean at least
an order of magnitude more than the current level.
The current increase in CO2 is happening at the same time as massive deforestation, so even this benefit is being nullified by human impact.
A lot of the forest is being cut for fuel. If people had better access to fossil fuels, they would cut down fewer trees. The increase in forested area in North America and Russia over the last century is largely attributable to the abandonment of wood as a fuel source in favor of fossil fuels.
Also, sheer mass is not the best way to look at the health of a biosphere. You would want to look at biodiversity and other factors.
But sheer mass is a good first approximation.
Atlantis wrote:Exactly, life emerged on a barren rock in the universe.
Life emerged on a planet with a high-CO2 atmosphere.
The climate change deniers want to reverse that life-creating process by a death-producing process.
You have it backwards. Life has been sequestering carbon, and if it proceeds much further, there won't be enough carbon in the atmosphere to sustain life.
Nothing can live on the toxic detritus of industrial society.
Clearly false. Lots of animals thrive on the detritus of industrial society.