Epic global warming debate going on right now: Tim Worstall vs Tim Worstall

Global warming: It's GOOD for the environment • The Register

[Tim Worstall] Climate change, this global warming thing, it's going to mean that the tropical forests frazzle up and then we all die, right? It will mena the death of the "lungs of the planet" – such as the miles upon miles of Amazon jungle – which turn CO₂ into the O₂ that we inhale. It's titsup for humanity, basically. Except, according to one new paper in Nature, that's not the way it will work. CO₂ is indeed plant food and more plant food means more plants, more forests and thus we're all saved: or perhaps not quite as screwed as some seem to think at least.
...Now all we have to hope for is that the upcoming IPCC report, the fifth, will report honestly and openly upon all the effects of rising CO₂ levels so we can work out whether it's worth ditching industrial civilisation or not. Yes, I live in hope too. For this is actually the most important question in the entire subject. We know very well what the direct effect of a doubling of atmospheric CO₂ is: a 0.7 degree rise in temperature – that's just straight physics. The idea that we might get 2 or 4 or 5 degrees of temperature change comes from the interaction of positive and negative feedback mechanisms. And we don't know what all of those mechanisms are, don't know the direction of some of them and are really very unsure indeed what the total value is. Which is a pity because it's really the only thing we're interested in. ®

July 5, 2012: Warmist Tim Worstall suggests that "we" want a carbon tax or cap and tax so that we can prevent CO2-induced bad weather