When I look at a CO2 chart of the last 100 years, the numbers get higher and higher.  So what gives this children's television entertainer any credibility against accredited scientists?

T o Peter B.:  Your two points are illogical and contradictory.  CO2 is the GREATEST pollutant that gets into the ocean and it causes ocean acidification.  If you want dumping fees to discourage this, then you must support CO2 taxation.  The part about the banks and derivatives makes no sense to me - a Fox News infection perhaps?
As for you unfriendly comments about the other commentators: Logical thinking will separate the dudes from the duds.

I'm not with any of the first two commentators. True...We pollute the oceans, but we do so by dumping nuclear waste, oil, garbage and other chemicals into it.

The co2 scheme is just another hidden tax to rob people of their hard earned money and direct the revenue to the banks. CO2 taxation is just another fictive derivative to make big bucks,

If you REALLY want to stop polluting our precious earth, then STOP DUMPING crap into our oceans. But as long as the penalties for dumping waste into the ocean outweights the costs for safe disposal of hazardous materials, they will keep on dumping and blame mankind for their own greed and utter disregard for nature. Companies don't give a shiite about pollution. All that matters are profit and control.

Treated like heretics? You two dudes are boring the hell out of me.

I am with the first commentator.  This article is really full of half-truths and does not add to the debate at all.  It ignores the fact that the Arctic ice is melting.  It ignores the fact that the oceans are rapidly becoming too acid for many irraplaceable forms of marine life to survive.  It says misleading things like "CO2 is a plant food and is needed for plant growth."  Food is essential for human growth, but forcing someone to double their intake is not a recipe for a healthy human.  
This sort of rubbish is paid for by firms that advertise on the internet for people who can write "vigorous right-wing letters" and if this is not one of them then he is wasting his time: writing for free.

What complete garbage, why do ignorantactors and storytelling dreamers get to adding such stupid comments into thegeneral understanding and the people that understand that a 40% increase inatmospheric CO2 get treated like heretics? Could it have anything to do withthe fact that they like their thermostat lifestyle and think that agriculturaltractors will one day run on solar panels or is this another example of a debate skewed in profile by powerful interests?