Yes defintely, for a greener more productive world more CO2 would be advantagous.

Some greenhouses have added CO2 at the rate of between 800ppm and 1200ppm, people work in these greenhouses all day long and don't even notice any difference, you have to get to at least 5000ppm to have any noticeable effect and we don't have enough fossil fuels to reach that amount.

I think somewhere between 600ppm and a 1000ppm would be ideal.

Would this amount cause any warming, well it is not certain it would and if it did it would probably small, a degree or two C rise which would also be beneficial, longer growing seasons more land available for agriculture.

So bring it on, we need more CO2.

And if the entire land mass of the world was covered with water, think of what the benefits would be for all the fish and dolphins? (note, not stating this as a predicted result of AGW, stating it as an example of similar thinking)

If A causes good thing B, but *also* causes bad thing C, then there's a balancing act as far as how much of A is good. Not enough A, and you don't have enough B. Too much A, and you have too much C. No one is saying that we should wipe out all CO2. We're saying that we have too much CO2, and in addition to whatever benefits it has, it's causing these serious problems.

Are you claiming that the "carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth" is a benefit that is being ignored? What a lie! No one is trying to remove all carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

It's not if co2 benefits the environment, it's about what benefits their wallets.

Absolutely! There is no research grant money to be had for the positives of higher atmospheric CO2.

Global warming is not real,people who think it's real don't know why it's real cause they have no proof,and they can't prove it cause they got snake eyes.

No one denies that carbon dioxide is essential to life. But, like everything else, too much does more harm than good.

Do you weigh 500 pounds. Food is essential for life. Anyone who weighs less than 500 pounds who uses the carbon dioxide is plant food argument is a hypocrite.

<"Too much does more harm"? Prove it!>

Basic physics

http://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?Sp...

http://www.physics4kids.com/files/thermo...

Sources? Roy Spencer? Really?

Water is absolutely necessary for life. Humans die in three days without it.

Therefore drowning is a myth made up by proponents of a global government.

yes, their stupidity is beyond comprehension.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/02/

" ... Carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth. That it has been so successfully demonized with so little hard evidence is truly a testament to the scientific illiteracy of modern society. If humans were destroying CO2 — rather than creating more — imagine the outrage there would be at THAT!

I would love the opportunity to cross examine these (natural) climate change deniers in a court of law. They have gotten away with too much, for too long. Might they be right? Sure. But the public has no idea how flimsy – and circumstantial – their evidence is.

In the end, I doubt the IPCC will ever be defunded. Last night’s vote in the House is just a warning shot across the bow. But unless the IPCC starts to change its ways, it runs the risk of being totally marginalized. It has almost reached that point, anyway.

And maybe the IPCC leadership doesn’t really care if its pronouncements are ignored, as long as they can jet around the world to meet in exotic destinations and plan where their next meeting should be held. I hear it’s a pretty good gig. ... "