I looked their website over and found a huge amount of BS to sort through. It seems to me that these folks are well beyond taking the contrarian position and are into pure irrational denial.
I noticed that many of their "reports" are actually cherry-picked fragments from journal articles written by, who I'm assuming are, legitimate researchers.

I read the report on the effects of elevated CO2 levels and temperature on calcium uptake in hermatypic (=reef building) corals, since it covered a subject that I keep up with actively.
My favorite little tidbit taken from their conclusion (emphasis mine):

"If there is a lesson to be learned from the materials discussed in this review, it is that people should be paying much more attention to real-world observations than to theoretical predictions. Far too many predictions of CO2-induced catastrophes are treated as sure-to-occur, when real-world observations show them to be highly unlikely or even virtual impossibilities. The cases of CO2-induced coral bleaching and ocean acidification are no different. We have got to realize that rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations are not the bane of the biosphere, but a boon to the planet

 

Thanks. At least I don't have the sore throat anymore. Everything seems to have migrated to my sinuses overnight. Good luck at the Doctor's.

 

Yep, that's consistent with their "CO2 is good" stance. And the agenda-driven spin that they put on everything, conveniently omitting facts that are contrary to their fantasies, is also to be expected.

As far as I know, only Sherwood Idso has any real scientific experience (and, as I said, he's considered to be a bit daft); the rest of the family is just doing the web site for the money from the oil companies. HPH

 

Get well quick, guys.

Dean...thanks for taking the time to add the long and interesting post. Much appreciated as it is comong from someone with expertise in the field under discussion. I look forward to more back and forth between you and Mike and Doc.

 

I've been wading through plant physiology texts and journals for a couple of hours now in an attempt to sort some of this out. In short, it's complicated and there's a horrendous amount of physiology and biochemistry to digest which would probably take me months. I'm now thinking of becoming a vegetarian. Not because I love animals, but because I REALLY hate plants.

It appears that which plants can take advantage of elevated CO2 levels is dependent upon a myriad of factors - C3 vs C4 plants (=differences in leaf structure), conifers vs deciduous, the season, temperature and light levels, O2 concentrations, H2O availability, etc.. Some plants are not affected at all, some are affected positively, and some are negatively affected. Of course, aside from the issue of CO2 uptake there's also the issue of the changing temperature/climate within the plants' native habitats.
I don't think anyone can make a sweeping generalization about plants and their adaptability to rising CO2 levels at this point, judging from what I've read so far. Then again, I'm no botanist.

Sorry for the piss poor reply. After spring break is over, I'll try to corral the botanist in my department to see if I can get a Reader's Digest condensed version of an answer.

 

The C3 vs. C4 response and their differences are things I remember reading about (and being confused by). Apparently an additional consideration is their use of water in conjunction with CO2 fertilization -- the initial growth spurt from the CO2 is then associated with less efficient water usage, so they dry up and blow away. Or something. I don't think you need to work too hard on this as a way of refuting the Idsos, though -- they're pretty good at making themselves look dumb. HPH

 

Well, it is an interesting subject for more than just climate change on earth. A spaceship with people on board can only carry so much oxygen and also needs some way to scrub out CO2. One of the most likely ways to do this would be to have a bunch of plants on board. They could refresh the atmosphere and also provide a source of food.

It might be more efficient to selectively remove the CO2 from the rest of the ship and concentrate it in the greenhouse section -- assuming that helped the plants. If it doesn't help the plants, you wouldn't want to bother with that.