So, I have just taken a little bit of a random sample on Idsos website, and already I have some concerns.

This is by no means a systematic sampling, just the first random one I clicked on.

On this page:
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/e/ecosystem14.php

He describes 2 results from the same experiment, so i thought, ok let's take a look at that paper (Norton et al 1999).

I cannot find on the site where the list of papers used is. Could someone please direct me to the reference list?

Tracking down the Norton paper via google and search terms provided yields this paper (you may need subscription to view):
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2435.1999.00006.x/full
"Effects of Free-Air CO2 Enrichment (FACE) on experimental grassland communities. L. R. Norton, L. G. Firbank, H. Blum Functional Ecology June 1999"
Anyways, nowhere do the numbers provided by Idso match the numbers in the paper, and this was a first random sample.
Also one of the species looked at showed DECREASE in biomass under CO2 compared to ambient, but nowhere on Idsos site can I see that being discussed.

No wonder it isn't published as a peer reviewed paper, the editors/reviewers of a journal would be obligated to check that much of the review matched the actual papers it refers to, as well as making sure there was a complete reference list so as to be able to easily check.

On a first check, this 'review' seems pretty poor Don, but I know you probably couldn't detect it.

Geoff of Perth,

"I personally would like to see some sort of de-carbonisation carried out. Unfortunately, and necessarily, this experiment would be short-lived,"

Why do you say that? Do you not realise that we could largely decarbonise electricity globally - and reduce CO2 emissions from energy by about 50% by that act alone - if the 'Progressives' stopped blocking progress?

Do you not realise 'Progressives' have been blocking progress for 50 years. If not for that, global CO2 emissions now would be about 10% to 20% lower than they are and we'd be on a fast track to reduce them substantially over the next few decades. Instead, we have a long slow process ahead to catch up for 50 years of delays. And the same people - the so called 'Progressives' - are still delaying progress.

Would you like to visit the alternative? Follow the comments from here http://judithcurry.com/2012/12/01/open-thread-weekend-4/#comment-273000 to the end of the comments under 1.4

Bugsy's right. 'Fact checking' is not only the responsibility of authors, but also of editors.

HOLLY CRAP! that's HERESY! Must be a misogynist!

Try this Bugsy. http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/greening/references.php

It was under references in his index.

And where is Norton et al. 1999 in that list Graham?