Perhaps the confusion stems from my too-vague use of "we". Your "we" (understandably) refers to humans, who indeed stand much to lose by dramatic CO₂ swings. At least on a suitably mayfly time scale.

My "we" meant more "life on this planet", without as much anthropomorphic bias. Periods of increased warmth and easy access to carbon — the two are historically highly correlated, though not synonymous — are an overall boon to life, referred to as "warm periods", "climatic optimums", "life explosions", etc. This despite the ecosystem upheavals that accompany such large-scale climatic changes being detrimental to incumbent organisms. No argument there.

Coupled with the polarized political nature of the topic, I suspect this difference in "we" resulted in people reading too much into my comment, if you take the time to re-read it. My stance on short-term human-centric status-quo-preserving actions is probably not that different from yours, although I do find broader perspectives and facts helpful in framing rational discourse.

Also, the sole concern of the human species is the survival of the species. Of course we should try to ensure this survival in the most ethical way. Protecting the environment comes from those concerns. Climate change is a very big danger to our civilisation right now.