I'm not saying that CO₂ and wind turbines have a comparable effect on the climate. I'm saying that "it's small so it couldn't matter" is the same flawed thinking.

> Human CO2 emissions matter precisely because the math has exceeded change from natural causes.

Why? It's the significant detrimental impact of the human activity that's important, not how it compares to the amount or change from natural causes. (It doesn't even matter that it's human activity. If Earth were going to become inhospitable by entirely natural causes, that would still matter.)

> then maybe you might have a case.

I'm not making the case that wind turbines are harming the environment; that's just the example at hand. I'm making the case that casually dismissing (questions about) the potential impact of human activities is wrong.