"I did not give a critique of Norton et al 1999"

Granted, but as you say, you used Norton [1999], as the first randomly selected reference, to beat Idso around the chops for misquoting the point of the Norton [1999] paper; I was showing you that Idso did not misrepresent Norton [1999] but, as a lot of papers by pro-AGW scientists do, when they find something which contradicts AGW, is hedge or qualify, or in Norton[199]'s case, almost repudiate their own findings.

As for Dr Bert, do you deny the footnote in Curtin's paper? Perhaps a better way of putting it is that C4 plants are relatively independent of CO2 levels while C3 do benefit, and that if extra CO2 does cause hotter dryer conditions [which is unlikely since there will be more water around] then C4 has the mechanism for coping for that as well; this is fairly uncontroversial and has been around for a long time:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC542335/pdf/plntphys00135-0088.pdf

So Bugsy, are you saying that the evidence is actually that there will be less plant growth overall with increased CO2? Or is it just that some plants will benefit disproportionately? So we'll find it easier to grow potatoes, but no easier to grow corn?

Cohenite, no, not misquoting the 'point' of Nortons paper, as Idso doesn't actually quote anything from Norton et al, although he uses it as a reference in his 'database'. The numbers don't match the publication. That is what you call a RED FLAG.

I don't deny the footnote in Curtins paper, but it is a simplistic and one-sided observation i.e. greener=gooder

Graham, no again, what is it with you guys and thinking that if someone disgrees then they think the direct opposite?

Yes, some plants benefit disproportionately, and not all plants benefit. Some plants, such as spore-formers have been shown to have less growth, but on average most plants may have more. This does not necessarily translate into what you would think of as 'productivity' though, as fruit and yield have not been measured so much, and weeds will also benefit, as will insect pests.

Stop thinking so narrowly, i.e. just about crops, disproportionate growth and even growth retardation for some, will change ecosystems independently of cropping systems. Whether that is a 'good' thing or not will not be resolved by a greener=gooder attitude.

Came upon this article on the complexities of plant biology and future adaptation to a world with enriched CO2 levels.

http://blogs.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/fertilizationeffect/

Given Don's relative silence on the subject, I take he still believes that Craig Idso is doing a bang up job.

I guess the argument can be made that you can defend the use of one-sided non-peer-reviewed self-published internet literature if it "looks ok" and matches your political prejudices.

But that still means that in scientific publication circles, Idso's 'reports' are in the same category as the Greenpeace literature claiming that all the Himalayan glaciers will disappear by 2030.

Maybe you actually aren't better than this. My mistake, carry on.