Fear mongering.

It's actually a very legitimate worry, completely supported by the scientific evidence from all parts of the geologic and measured records of past climate, and the climate feedback models that can explain such data don't offer optimistic views about the planet's future.

Global warming..er, climate change is junk science.

The no-ice-at-the-north-pole could also be explained by this:
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/33630/description/Under_Ice

Fact: the earth's climate is ALWAYS changing.

Attributing global warming...er, climate change to being a solely human cause, invites the likes of Al Gore to set up a carbon tax brokerage in which he is set to make millions of dollars buying, selling and trading carbon credits.

it's no wonder he's spent $300 million "promoting" global warming...er, climate change. Since when does science need promotion?

And finally, do these stations look like they are in a proper place to be accurately predicting global warming...er, climate change?
http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm

Methane is 20x's the greenhouse gas and is in more abundance than CO2...perhaps we should ban farting? Do I even need to mention that CO2 is all that supports plant life?

Global warming, er climate change = junk science. Period. It's a ruse to sucker people out of their money and into the hands of the carbon credit brokers.

Mars is getting hotter as well...common denominator? The sun. I rest my case.

"The positive feedback on global warming has never caused any problems at all, except for maybe 55 million years ago... when it triggered a mass extinction."

Man was not spewing CO2 into the atmosphere 55 million years ago. Again, I rest my case.

Darwyn, it has been shown that increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere will increase the levels of the 'greenhouse' effect.
What you say is true, man was not doing this 55million years ago, however that didn't stop it causing mass extinction! We might not be the only cause, but we are having an effect on it, and so we should do what we can.
Sadly the planet will not let you survive just because the heating is due to natural cycles: extreme temperatures will still kill.

Wait Darwyn... what case?

I am afraid the case for global warming is all too strong. CO2 causes a greenhouse effect of approximately 1degree in the natural environment. It is albeit not the greatest greenhouse in terms of the natural occurrence in ppm or effect, but it has a greater effect naturally than methane. Water is responsible for well over 90% of the Greenhouse effect.

The natural greenhouse effect is essential for keeping the planet warm enough for modern (ie post-ice-age) life, without it we would have a planet at an average temperature of –15 degrees.

Global warming is caused by the adding of unnatural greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere, primarily from the combustion of fossil fuels if not totally, at least in part, and looking at records of both CO2 levels and temperature, the rate of temperature increase is dramatic. It is clear that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that each of us is individually pumping tonnes of it per year into the atmosphere. It is an inevitable consequence of this that global warming occurs.

You needn’t mention that plants require CO2 to live, since there is no issue about the potential death of all plants because we aren’t burning fuel to create CO2. We have spent centuries as a species not burning fossil fuels without harming plants and with a stable climate, now we are burning fuels plants have been harmed by lead petrol and the climate is clearly unstable.

I am saddened that you consider ad hominem arguments valid. Look at the major groups funding disproving global warming and you will see that opportunism that you perceive on one side is all too apparent as the case on the other. You ask since when science needs promotion. Since it became entangled with politicians and public who do not understand it. You are part of that group who haven’t listened to or understood the science. Since I am currently working at the UK’s national laboratory, I think it isn’t too unrealistic for me to claim that I do understand the science far better than you.

Your arguments are fallacious, both in their premises and their logic; your science is unsubstantiated, misunderstood and wrong; your justification for wanting to believe that nothing wrong is happening is clear- its just easier to do so. It is this sort of attitude that I have little time but much contempt for, since you clearly have read no science and spoken to no scientist on the issue, and you are no scientist yourself.

and i'm sure all of this climate change stuff is very relevant to Diplomacy, and will completely ruin my plans to stab and invade Switzerland next year.

"I am afraid the case for global warming is all too strong."

So strong that there is no consensus among the scientific community? That's not very strong at all. I've submitted to you that the data you are getting are from sensors that are placed in spots that they have no business being to accurately record data. Did you see the link? That is not science by any measure.

"We have spent centuries as a species not burning fossil fuels without harming plants and with a stable climate"

Stable climate? How so? Just as recently as the 70's scientists were screaming Global cooling. The middle ages were by far cooler than it is now. So there is no such thing as a stable climate. It's ever changing. And that is the point.

The only difference is that someone told you that CO2 is bad and that you need to pay for it. Take a look at the politicians who are adhering to it like Al Gore. They are the same ones who stand to profit. Couple this fact with the split among scientists and you have bullshit.

"Look at the major groups funding disproving global warming and you will see that opportunism that you perceive on one side is all too apparent as the case on the other."

This just proves my point even further. If both sides are fighting to gain from this, that equals bullshit.

"Your arguments are fallacious, both in their premises and their logic; your science is unsubstantiated, misunderstood and wrong;"

I need not go any further than to point out the fact that Mars is getting warmer due to rising solar activity to defeat the entirety of the global warming argument. Case closed.

"your justification for wanting to believe that nothing wrong is happening is clear"

Ah, but you didn't read my point. I made no such claim. I NEVER said nothing is wrong. I believe in a wise use of resources. I believe we shouldn't be polluting the air. I believe we need to recycle and all that...I believe that the earth IS getting warmer...what I DON'T believe is a divided scientific community, hijacked by politicians to sucker people into paying for something that has not been proven (man-made global warming, that is).

"It is this sort of attitude that I have little time but much contempt for"

The feeling is mutual. I doubt you are detached enough from your own work to see the screw job that you, yourself, are a part of. Of course you would believe mad-made global warming, doing so pays your bills.

"you are no scientist yourself."

I never claimed to be. I know bullshit when I see it though. You have NO proof of man-made global warming, yet here you are telling me that MY arguments are fallacious?! That's rich. Let me be clear, the earth IS getting warmer (we just got out of an ice age)...attributing it to man is nonsense at this point considering the other factors that you have chosen to ignore, just like the rest of the junk scientists.

Hell, maybe I am wrong...maybe it isn't even warming...that would certainly put a dent in the "man-made" argument. Would anyone care to explain this?

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report
+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

Darwyn, you say that there is " no consensus among the scientific community" with regards to climate change/warming ??

um...im pretty sure the boat has left on that one. Im not a scientist
in any way shape or form but from a lay persons
look into climate change it seems only certain "research" groups funded by exxon and the like that are still pushing the line that its all just a natural minor blimp of hot air and lets keep the good times (for our profits especially) rolling.
the large majority or companies and politicians of all
persuasions have accepted it as scientific fact, what they still fighting about is who will pick up the bill.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/05/10/junk-science/

perhaps I misspoke...I meant that there is no consensus among the scientific community with regard to warming as man being the cause.

And if you noticed in my OP, I purposefully mentioned global warming and corrected myself to say climate change. The politicians conveniently switched this term to account for the evidence I supplied above, no doubt. Because it doesn't matter, they want your money anyway...no matter the cause, no matter the data.

It's the oldest trick in the book.

1) Create a problem (by whatever means necessary)
2) Offer solution
3) Profit

Only a matter of time before this discussion came to this forum :-(

My only advice is to read the IPCC summary report. It's only ~30 pages, written for laypeople, backed up by peer reviewed scientific research, and reflects the scientific consensus.

If you read it you'll find that the truth isn't as alarmist as some people (Al Gore etc) make out, but the earth will warm a few degrees in the next hundred years and this will affect many economies to varying degrees.

It isn't the apocalypse some are claiming, but we should still try and limit it and prepare for it as much as possible

If up until now you've only seen documentaries or news on climate change just read this small document to get the facts:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf

Very good advice kestas...thank you!

I don't wanna ruffle too many feathers here, so I'll be done with this. My apologies, if I've offended anyone.

Eh, I'm not the most educated on the subject, but from what I know, I'm not actually too worried about the whole global warming deal. I think it's exaggerated, and I also think it's inevitable.

I wouldn't argue that the natural warming cycle of the Earth isn't heavily exacerbated by the massive burning of fossil fuels, but I'd say that even if we all dropped dead tomorrow, the world would still heat up, albeit a little slower.

If the hype is all right, and apocalyptic conditions will destroy the world, I would be less concerned about the prevention and more about the treatment in this case. I don't think we have the technology to combat the positive feedback cycles of climate change and we should perhaps be more concerned with addressing the many problems that are supposed to arise as temperature increases.

I have a question though, perhaps someone who knows more about the subject can help me out. Does planting trees actually 'help' fight global warming? From what I know, wouldn't planting a tree only lower albedo, seeing as leaves are designed to absorb light, trapping more solar energy? Does CO2 actually reflect more light back than the dark green leaves of a tree? I know a tree would use up CO2, a major greenhouse gas, but from what I know of living things and the Second Law, wouldn't the tree expel more heat in the end? I'm not saying we shouldn't plant trees, because they are obviously very important and help reduce pollution and whatnot, but does planting trees in the name of reducing global warming make any real sense?

whatever the cause of climate patterns changing over time, its something that puts enormous stresses specifically on a lot of the human social, technological systems.

Darwyn, I wouldn't be so quick to thank Kestas. The study he linked clearly disagrees with your view. See page 5 for the causes. It actually says that:

"During the past 50 years, the sum of solar and volcanic
forcings would likely have produced cooling. Observed patterns
of warming and their changes are simulated only by
models that include anthropogenic forcings. Difficulties remain
in simulating and attributing observed temperature
changes at smaller than continental scales. {2.4}"

This reflects what I know since we are historically in a global glacial period of climate. It also says that :

"Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (379ppm) and CH4
(1774ppb) in 2005 exceed by far the natural range over the
last 650,000 years. Global increases in CO2 concentrations
are due primarily to fossil fuel use, with land-use change providing
another significant but smaller contribution. It is very
likely that the observed increase in CH4 concentration is predominantly
due to agriculture and fossil fuel use. CH4 growth
rates have declined since the early 1990s, consistent with total
emissions (sum of anthropogenic and natural sources) being
nearly constant during this period. The increase in N2O
concentration is primarily due to agriculture. {2.2}
There is very high confidence that the net effect of human
activities since 1750 has been one of warming.6 {2.2}"

So the study quite conclusively shows that global warming is very much caused by humans. And from what I read, it didn't sound as though they were dismissing the hype so much as just using more conservative language. While stating that a Day After Tomorrow situation is highly unlikely, they do admit that there will very likely be coastal flooding, increased disease vectors, massive loss of biodiversity, and fresh water shortages.

Page 9 and 10 are particularly troubling. The effects of global warming as portrayed by the study are numerous and vast and very much on the negative side of the spectrum. The study uses very matter of fact language, and while not as alarmist as many environmental groups would have us believe, global warming still represents a hugely significant factor for the future of human and ecological development. Far more that I suspected myself, perhaps just as much as most people did, but still, it is troubling.

Perhaps I did thank him a bit too fast... :)

Admittedly I have not read this. However, upon a cursory look there were a few red flags I noticed right away...

1) The title itself:
Climate Change 2007:
Synthesis Report
Summary for Policymakers

Summary for policymakers? Already this suggests that this is more agenda driven rather than actual scientific observation.

2) The report I linked to above is from 2008. It outdates kestas's linked article and states: "All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down."

This year alone, China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.

That in itself, wipes out just about everything kestas's article states. It also suggests that climate changes...just as I have stated before.

3) The data in this article could easily come from the very same sensors that I linked to above, making the entire study flawed. A sensor that sits five feet away from an air conditioner, a light bulb or black asphalt is going to record higher temperatures...that is obvious. To attribute the increase to global warming is disingenuous at best. And downright criminal to those who knowingly promote it.

However, these are beside the point. I think people tend not to look at other possible factors at work here, especially the agenda.

I don't discount the fact that the earth is getting warmer. I discount the agenda that promotes the cause to man as justification to create wealth out of thin air by brokering carbon credits.

"While stating that a Day After Tomorrow situation is highly unlikely, they do admit that there will very likely be coastal flooding, increased disease vectors, massive loss of biodiversity, and fresh water shortages."

Well, that certainly suggests a Day After Tomorrow scenario, doesn't it?

And IF, by summer, there will cease to be ice at the north pole, most of the world would be under water. Yet, we haven't even seen coastal flooding on even a miniscule scale.

BTW...here are live pics from the North Pole...not so much melting going on...at least not on the scale needed to have it ice free by summer:
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/gallery_np.html

People can be easily swayed by "facts" by scientists or politicians with agendas. I think you need to look far deeper into this "problem" in order to come to the real truth before surrendering your hard earned money to those who are willing to take it.

The only thing that we can be sure of, given that there really is no consensus, is that the politicians want your money.

Darwyn: FACT. Methane is in far less abundance in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, and that is by a factor between 500 and 1000. There's a reason carbon dioxide is measured in parts per million (ppm) and methane in parts per billion (ppb). Methane oxidizes to CO2 by natural causes in a residence time of about 10 years, so its concentrations in the atmosphere are kept low and only show spikes for short periods of time before it's converted to CO2.

Methane is, per molecule, a stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but their relative concentrations in the present world atmosphere are such that methane's contribution in greenhouse effect warming are only approximately one-fourth that of carbon dioxide.

While you're also correct to point out that climate change is not a phenomenon unique to human times -- indeed, our current icehouse conditions on the planet are markedly colder than they were for the overwhelming majority of Earth's recoverable geologic history -- your point does not stand. Evidence that climate change has occurred in the past when humans had not yet evolved is not the same thing as demonstrating that humans are not responsible for the bulk of the climate change we are observing today. The climate change we have observed today is a combination of the natural cycles (which presently are glacial-interglacial cycles at recurrence intervals of 100,000 years with interglacial periods similar to the pre-Industrial climate that last about 10,000 years between each glacial period) and the effects of human-driven climate change. The human-driven climate change has actually reversed the observed effect from what would have happened if natural forces were left to their own devices: Without anthropogenic warming of the planet, we would presently be in a period of glacial advances, and Earth would be entering the next ice age.

One additional point that must be made is that one year's data (as you referenced above) cannot be used as evidence that global warming has ended. The long-term trends are not destroyed or even challenged by a few years of data that might appear to trend in another direction. Climate change is a long-term, large spatial scale phenomenon, and interannual variability in temperature exceeds the average temperature increase per year.

If you have a graphing calculator handy, consider the graph of the function f(x) = 0.2x + sin x. This isn't a literal representation of any climate patterns, but it demonstrates the point: Although the function's values decline over some domains, the declining value of the function over these domains does not demonstrate that the function has ceased its long-term increase.

The long-term increase of global average temperatures is just like this function: variability in a shorter term (e.g. the variation due to El Nino/La Nina cycles or the North Pacific Decadal Oscillation) dwarfs the longer-term change in short-term observations. Given this, 2007 can not be reasonably accepted as compelling evidence of a reversal to anthropogenic global warming.

Your statement about the world flooding if the ice at the North Pole melted is false. The ice in the Arctic Ocean is all floating, and it exactly displaces its mass of water in order to float. As the ice melts, it then fills exactly the same volume of water that it once displaced, creating no net change in sea surface height.

The issues of flooding come from the thermal expansion of seawater on a global scale in the surface layers of the ocean (which has already been observed, although this is not a quick change). The other main contributors to sea level change -- the ones that act on a faster time scale -- are melting ice ON LAND, or a shift from supporting the base of ice sheets (especially Greenland or West Antarctic) by underlying land to supporting these ice sheets through the buoyant forces of water. Rapid sea level rise only occurs in such situations as these when a large mass of water that was previously stored on land is suddenly transferred to the sea and floated, NOT when ice already floating in the sea begins to melt.

I see your point cteno4...and you have me on most of the technical stuff.

However, my point is still valid and clear. While we seem to both agree that warming is a reality, there is no proof that man is the cause of the increase of CO2 levels. For instance:

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=126624
Australian and American scientists have discovered a chain of, rather large, volcano's Northeast of Fiji.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/06/the-sunspot-mys.html
Geophysicist Phil Chapman, the first Australian to become an astronaut with NASA, said pictures from the US Solar and Heliospheric Observatory also show that there are currently no spots on the sun. He also noted that the world cooled quickly between January last year and January this year, by about 0.7C.

"This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record, and it puts us back to where we were in 1930," Dr Chapman noted in The Australian recently.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/26/climatechange.pollution
Greenhouse gases over the tropical Atlantic are disappearing faster than expected, according to the first comprehensive measurements taken in the region.

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=569586
As summarized in a report last month, released along with a petition signed by 32,000 U. S. scientists who vouched for the benefits of CO2: "Higher CO2 enables plants to grow faster and larger and to live in drier climates. Plants provide food for animals, which are thereby also enhanced. The extent and diversity of plant and animal life have both increased substantially during the past half-century."

Lush as the planet may now be, it is as nothing compared to earlier times, when levels of CO2 and Earth temperatures were far higher. In the age of the dinosaur, for example, CO2 levels may have been five to 10 times higher than today, spurring a luxuriantly fertile planet whose plant life sated the immense animals of that era. Planet Earth is also much cooler today than during the hothouse era of the dinosaur, and cooler than it was 1,000 years ago during the Medieval Warming Period

Here I've outlined several factors that the global warming cultists fail to account for:
1) the unknown (ie. underwater volcanoes and ocean cleansing of gases)
2) the activity of the sun

Along with the flawed data from ill placed sensors, the only thing we know is that we don't know for sure.

Furthermore, Global warmers seem to like to demonize CO2 as if it were a bad thing. It is not. It stimulates plant growth, the essence of life.

Let me reiterate that I am for the wise use of resources and ending wasteful practices...but there is simply NOT enough evidence to prove man causes global warming to justify the steps politicians are making to "correct" the problem with more taxes.

The scientific community does not agree...but the politicians agree that WE should pay for it regardless.

“Summary for policymakers? Already this suggests that this is more agenda driven rather than actual scientific observation.”

“I doubt you are detached enough from your own work to see the screw job that you, yourself, are a part of. Of course you would believe mad-made global warming, doing so pays your bills.”

No on both counts. When a civil-service scientist commits suicide over his integrity you can tell the nature of the field. The summary is just that, a summary of the scientific knowledge for policymakers, lay people. There is no agenda.

Secondly, your complete lack of knowledge about science is shown by the belief that I need to work on global warming to be a scientist. This simply isn’t true, I am working on another topic entirely. Also, stop telling me I have “No PROOF” when I do. There are any number of scientific papers written about the issue, if you care to read and understand them.

The scientific community is agreed as far as it is possible to agree a prediction. And the huge personal prizes are on offer for disproving global warming (in fact, by so doing you stand to earn more than by winning a Nobel Prize). In spite of this nobody has a proof that is submitted to the scientific community. You present “Internet science” which, if it were sound, would be published as real science. It is not.

I am sorry, I refuse to rise to your arguing, even if by so doing you will proclaim that your arguments are better. There is only one thing that is worse than preaching to the converted- preaching to those who refuse to convert.

Whoa... you can't just dismiss the study that Kestas put out just because of the title. If you read the mandate of the ipcc on their website I would say that they have little political agenda, rather they serve to educate the politicians.

"IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, technical and socio economic factors. They should be of high scientific and technical standards, and aim to reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage."

Regarding your second point, a drop of temperature in one year is hardly evidence that disproves warming. It is an average temperature increase over much longer periods than a year. It has been said that increasing temperatures will cause a larger fluctuation in temperatures though on average they will increase. So it is no surprise that certain years will be colder. You can't look at a single year and use it to disprove a warming movement on a much higher order. You are contradicting yourself here. You admit that there is a warming effect, but that it is not man-made. But then you go one to argue that there is no warming effect. Yes climate changes, but we're talking about large scale shifts here, not on a year by year basis. There is an obvious trend in global temperatures on the geological scale. But the study that Kestas linked shows that the temperature increases we are seeing are highly uncharacteristic of the normal temperature fluctuations since we are currently in a glacial age, and temperatures were expected to fall on average. Look at any of the temperature graphs in the study, you'll find that there is huge variation year by year, but the average trend is to global warming.

As to your argument of sensors, I have no way of knowing really if the study used faulty sensors or not, but considering it's objective mandate set out by UN agencies I would be very surprised if they were deliberately attempting to deceive us. Regardless, if the sensors are stationary over many decades then the average increase in temperature is enough to justify global warming, it is not the mere difference in air conditioning to black asphalt. It is a trend over the course of decades.

When I said Day After Tomorrow scenario I was referring to the altered salinity in the Atlantic Ocean currents bringing about a severe ice age. I wasn't referring to apocalyptic conditions. The effects I listed may seem drastic, but they will only compound our world's current problems. The world as it is now is pretty screwed up anyways. There's a desperate clean water shortage in most of Africa, and it will only get worse with global warming. It doesn't suggest the civilized world will end or that it will introduce hugely novel problems, it is mostly an increase of familiar problems.

Your live pictures of the Arctic are no proof either. I don't think the naked eye can discern the difference between multiple winter ice build-up and so called single winter freezing. I don't put that much stock into the original article posted, and it's doesn't necessarily mean death and destruction either, except for the local fauna. Although it might exacerbate the growing battle for Arctic resources.

It's weird that you agree that there is global warming, but say that it's not man-made, but half of your arguments deny global warming outright. I'm sure that the environmentalism movement has a political agenda, but that does not stop it from being true. If the real money is anywhere it's in the continued use of fossil fuels. I wouldn't be surprised if environmentalism was being bent for nefarious purposes, but it wouldn't have been invented for such purposes when a perfectly good moneymaker lies in fossil fuels.

For your second post...
Obviously there are other contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, but if you look at Kestas' study, the vast majority are caused by humanity. It is not simply bad luck that all of a sudden all these greenhouse gases are present in the atmosphere. Before the industrial revolution this was not the case. It's not a coincidence.

Kestas' study takes into account solar and volcanic activity, as I quoted earlier "During the past 50 years, the sum of solar and volcanic forcings would likely have produced cooling".

As for the immense CO2 reserves in the ocean, this is definitely a major contributor, because as temperatures increase, the solubility of CO2 in the oceans decreases. The oceans are by far the largest reserves of CO2 and this causes a positive feedback effect. But if it were not for man made emissions this would not be a problem, as temperatures would on average decrease as we happen to be in a mini ice age in the grand scheme of global warming and cooling cycles.

In the age of the dinosaur, plant life was quite different from the plant life we have now, and was surely better suited to a more CO2 saturated atmosphere. Modern day plants are not necessarily as well equipped to deal with higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, though I suppose they will adjust if the emissions are gradual enough. But are they? The study suggests that the rate of emissions will continue to grow through to 2030 and beyond even with the mitigation measures being taken as fossil fuels will continue to be the main source of energy in the world. If the planet warms too quickly for the global flora we'll see rainforests converted to savannahs, and savannahs converted to deserts, ntoa luxuriantly fertile planet, according to the study. As well, ocean acidity increases, damaging coral reefs. Besides it's ridiculous to justify the burning of fossil fuels by saying that the CO2 emitted actually helps plants, when the industrial wastes of burning and refining fossil fuels creates vast amounts of pollution that cause so much damage to the global flora.

Besides, CO2 can only help plants to a certain point. They are limited by the resource that is the least abundant. Basic high school biology teaches this. Excess CO2 isn't used to stimulate the growth of plants, if the plants don't have enough water or other nutrients to grow. Did I mention water shortages caused by global warming? Do you think plants will care about all the CO2 floating around when they can't get water?

CO2 is not a demon, it's just that we have too much of it. Everything in moderation... If you have too much of anything it's bad...