And we’ve also had CO2 levels 10x what they are today without the so called runaway-greenhouse happening.

This is simply false.

This is worth considering:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%…

Again, most notably, this event took place over the course of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years - while CO2 in our time is racing upwards in the course of decades. The ability of plants and animals to adapt (in dispersal or genetically) will be foreshortened and more limited yet.

See also this not-so-new article summarizing a meta-study (which is directly linked and freely available) that should have put to rest all the silly ignorant flailing by sticks-in-the-mud denialists:

news.climate.columbia.edu/2023…

Even with the obviously necessary massive error bars, the correspondence between CO₂ levels and average temperatures is stunningly obvious in the primary take-away graph.

A New 66 Million-Year History of Carbon Dioxide Offers Little Comfort for Today

Scientists have produced a new curve of how atmospheric carbon dioxide affects climate. It makes clear that its effects can be long lasting.

^{Kevin Krajick (State of the Planet)}

We have already almost doubled historic levels!

earth.org/data_visualization/a…

I know you don't want to worry, but think about why so many smart people are worried.

A Graphical History of Atmospheric CO2 Levels Over Time

As the most abundant greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, CO2 levels have varied widely over the course of the Earth’s 4.54 billion year history.

^{Owen Mulhern (Earth.Org)}

Tell enough lies and it becomes true, right Tom?

Excellent point. I cannot let you continue this evil path.

_65 million years ago we were recovering from a large asteroid impact, _

another excellent point. This impact shows how devastating rapid changes are to the ecology of the world. The asteroid impact only directly destroyed a limited area, but the shading of sunlight and global cooling it touched-off destroyed many, many species. It's all about the _rate of change.

Interesting about the Ordovician, but it's not certain that the CO2 levels were that high. It's also speculated that the heating then generated a deep and thick layer of clouds, which then led to a cooling... But again we are talking about processes over millions of years. You refuse to consider that it is the rate of change which is most important.

newscientist.com/article/dn186…

We need to rein-in our release of CO2, simple as that.

High-carbon ice age mystery solved

How come a big ice age happened when carbon dioxide levels were high? It's a question climate sceptics often ask. But sometimes the right answer is the simplest: it turns out CO 2 levels were not that high after all.

^{Jeff Hecht (New Scientist)}

I would rather see a robust economy in which humans aren’t freezing to death, and let’s be clear here at present 10x as many people die of cold as they do of heat

The future will change that. And many more will die of hunger. And we cannot simply move our agriculture north - the soils of the taiga are remarkably poor. But it will be the rate of change which does us in - massive change in the span of less than 10 decades. Already people are losing their homes along the seacoast...

@Nanook I see you're continuing to ignore even the facts I put in front of you. Your story about pre-history does not seem to match those facts.

As for even further back, i.e. "500 million years ago", well you've clearly not kept up with the current science, as per Tom's demonstration.

Meanwhile it is becoming clearer and clearer that rapid changes in CO₂ levels will change the climate too fast for plants and animals to migrate and evolve and survive, even when "fast" is considered on geological timescales, never mind the abrupt changes we humans are causing. We simply don't know where the tipping points are for these problems within the current conditions on Earth, so even threatening to continue as-is is a risk beyond insane.

Your apparent claim that the continuing use of fossil fuels will somehow cause us to succeed faster on fusion and better fission reactors is so blindingly backwards I can't even begin to figure out where to start. In fact it is clearly stated by all of those working on such technology that one of their primary motivations for doing so is to be able to replace fossil fuel use! Indeed Bill Gates is one of the large investors supporting nuclear reactor technology development.

Conflating deaths from the cold with having any part of the problem is gas-lighting.

BTW, who is this Klaus? I assume by "Gates" you mean Bill Gates?