Carbon dioxide is in fact good for the flora. However and obviously it is also good for the big business that found new niche for making money. This year freeze European winter weakens the point about global warming. There are aslo statements that comparative temperature is measured by the thermometers that are now in the urban setting while ages ago used to be in the open. One does not need “scientific” proof that temperature in the unheated room with petrol engine on is higher then in the unheated room with petrol engine off. That is almost axiom. One-three degree error in the measurement of temperature in the open likely is acceptable error and shall be taken as +/- to the scientific results. Also there is proven movement in the earth’s natural cycle from ice period to flood period.
Of course, I do not suggest that we are not responsible for the ecology and rubbish on the beach.

Andrew - its time to give this theme away. The view of the carbon cycle and the connection between CO2 and other climate issues is not nearly as settled as you would have us believe in the article, but let me take one point. You say, correctly, that CO2 concentrations are increasing at 2ppm a year .. quite so. Its been that way for about a decade. No real sign of any acceleration despite repeated assurances that CO2 emissions are increasing faster than expected. At that rate of increase, existing CO2 concentrations will not double for 200 years. They will not reach 1,000 for another century beyond that.. And the additional increase has to come from CO2. Concentrations in the other big greenhouse greenhous gas, methane, leveled off some years back. A point you neglect to mention. Check the NOAA graphs if you don't believe me.
The projections used by IPCC for CO2 and methane concetrations on which its climate projections depend are a decade old, depend on economics as much as science and are already looking decidedly off.. leave it with you..

Curmudgeon

Perhaps you would like to look at http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ and scroll down to "Annual Mean Growth Rate for Mauna Loa, Hawaii". I didn't closely analyse the data, but a quick look does not show a linear growth rate over the last 50 years. What it does show to me that rates vary over time, the growth rate is always positive and it is certainly greater than 50 years ago.

We just have to keep our parks in place and to preserve them from building out by the wealth which simultaneously makes money from the CO increase due to increase of personal transport or industry. We should plant the trees on both sides of the roads instead of build out sides of the road with highrises etc. That might be enough to resolve the emerging "probblem" which is in fact never presented from each and every aspect.

Anthony - a sensible comment. That's quite so.. in fact about 1960 it was about 0.5 ppm a year but it reached its present rate of increase before 2000, so there was a big upward kick about the same time as temperatures increased and it has since stabilised.. The problem is that the forecasts for CO2 concentrations were made in 2000 (the IPCC's special report on emission scenarios, its on the IPCC site), and those forecast assumed the CO2 increase would not only continue but accelerate. Not only that but Methane levelled off completely. Those projections have not been updated, so you still see concentration figures given for 2030 that now connot possibly happen. People are quoting the top range of the IPCC projections when actual concentrations are running near the bottom, not the top, of the IPCC projections.
Then we have the problem that what is known of the geological record and CO2 concentrations, major temperature changes actually preceed those of the CO2 concentrations. This is notable in the Vostok ice core material. Global warmers get around this by claiming that the CO2 increases are first triggered by temperature increases (caused by other factors) then take over the warming. Andrew's stuff deals with the geological record where CO2 concentrations are linked to temperature to some degree but its not possible to say one leads the other. In fact, its more likely temperature leads.

More cherry picked data, which this scientific area is becoming known for and around the world at all levels of communities, is losing all credibility.

How can anyone trust any temperature data coming out of this area, when the "peer review" process is accepting of people making up their own datasets, if they are a member of the club and mates with the reviewers.

How can Phil Jones state you should go make up your own dataset since he doesn't want to give out his well manicured home grown, loosely based on the odd factoid here and there, dataset - obviously years in the making and supports all manner of HIS and HIS MATES theories.

What a joke this is on all the taxpayers around the world supporting this so called "research".

No wonder the chief scientist in the UK, is upset about science's reputation being degraded (our chief scientist is a political appointee and thinks whatever she is told)

What a disservice to Australian scientific progress is a paper like this, as Curmudgeon points out, being "pruduent with facts and the truth."