Tamsin, yet another great piece. I do like you argument that science does not have to be glamorous or complicated to be worthwhile. Even simple observations and experiments can help us better understand the world around us and provide further proof that we are detrimentally affecting our environment.

"This air sampling, which has been going on for 50 years (see above link), shows a dramatic rise in carbon dioxide levels which remains even after any variations in the natural carbon cycle have been factored in. ... This basically means, as you'll notice is a reoccurring [sic] theme in my posts, that the carbon dioxide we're pumping into the atmosphere is responsible for the recent observed global warming."

Oh, BS. This does not prove a cause-and-effect.

I know a man that was born 50 years ago. In that 50 years, carbon dioxide emissions have risen. Using your logic, I could therefore presume that had this man not been born, the emissions would not have risen.

Correlation does not equal causation. Also known as the logical fallacy "Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc".

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Cum+Hoc+Ergo+Propter+Hoc&btnG=Search

of course the ice core carbon is several hundred years AFTER the rise in temps - something which throws that notion out the Gore-y window.....

I suppose that I fall into the skeptical, yet very curious. That old hole in the ozone layer is still there getting larger and smaller due to so many factors, including the millions of tons of ozone A being pumped in the ozone layer by electrical storms throughout the planet. Now that the money has been made and continues to be made, we have done a very good job in boosting the Gross Domestic Product in not only our country but, likely many others. Anytime that science discovers an apparent problem that has importance to all persons on earth, that primes the pump for more research which is the way research always works. Research is never done, but why? Because we will never be able to gather all of the relevant factors involved that remain to be found, and so additional research is needed to find those factors. I Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" complete? No, it remains a workable tool but it is far from being complete. I submit that we do not have enough facts to make an absolute out of mankinds use of fossil fuel, that we know produces carbon dioxide, (simple science) to have a major affect on global warming. We have been warming since the year of 1500. Our planet wobbles on its axis, the Moon is creeping away from earth, solar flares do a lot of things that we have yet to determine, our relative position in the Solar System and the effect produced by that is still being researched, and I will end with our relative position in our own galaxy and its relationship to the other galaxies in the universe all must factor into global warming. Why? Because we have not found those factors that might influence it. Is global warming "bad science?" No,it is ongoing science that will and should continue. Are there individuals out there that are going to increase our Gross Domestic Products based upon incomplete scientific studies? Well of course. Why did Al Gore write his book. I am sure it had to have something with moving money. Think about it. Smokey

What impact on vegetation growth does the elevated co2 cause? I saw a "mission to mars" experiment that involved using plants to convert the co2 back to breathable o2. The scientists were surprised to discover that when the crew exercised (thus releasing increased amounts of co2) the plants converted the air at a faster rate in the elevated carbon rich environment. Perhaps those levels are more substantial than what we are experiencing globally.