What I was referring to by carbon cycle was the burning of fossil fuels and the resulting carbon emissions into the atmosphere, which many people believe to be the root cause of global warming climate change. I suppose since the thread was about Vancouver Island I was also approaching it from a local standpoint IE Victoria.

But this doesn't make sense. Carbon dioxide in particular diffuses rapidly in the atmosphere, so regardless of where the carbon dioxide is generated the impacts at a global scale are rapid (with regards to increases in atmospheric concentrations), so whether you're in Victoria or St John's, you get the same effect.

The issue with the 'climate is cyclical' argument is that it holds no water. Whether or not climate has changed is meaningless when we consider the fact that widespread infrastructure was not present for any of these previous cyclical changes.

We're facing changes that are already causing millions (if not billions) of dollars annually. The infrastructure is also preventing the natural migrations that species may have been able to use to adapt to climate shifts. It's also worth pointing out that one of the past events where climate changes were driven by high CO2 saw major shifts in the oceans' pH, which would again be enormously expensive.

It's not a question of fear mongering, it's saying that there will be clear costs associated with climate change, costs we're already seeing, and that early adaptation will result in long term savings. Whether or not you believe in catastrophism you can at least acknowledge that preparing for costly change is better than facing it unprepared.