You should consider the source.
<a href = http://www.prwatch.org/improp/oism.html>Read this article</a>
A couple citations..
Fakhri Bazzaz, a plant physiologist at Harvard, has found that carbon dioxide-enriched air accelerates short-term plant growth, but his studies were carried out under controlled greenhouse conditions and are difficult to translate to a larger scale. Plant growth in natural systems may be constrained by a shortage of soil nutrients despite the greater availability of carbon dioxide. Moreover, Bazzaz's experiments involved carbon dioxide concentrations at levels 100% greater than those now existing in our atmosphere, whereas the greenhouse warming we are experiencing right now results from only a 20% increase in world carbon dioxide levels. Clearly, it is irresponsible to predict "benefits" from increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere when such "benefits" may only appear after we suffer the consequences of a five-fold increase over current anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. Finally, Bazzaz found that different plant species vary dramatically in their response to increased carbon dioxide. Plants such as sugar cane and corn were not improved, but weeds were stimulated. There is not much real benefit in warming the planet by several degrees just so we can maybe make it easier for weeds to grow.
The author, Arthur Robinson, is a very religious conservative who's concerned with "socialism" in society. While that, in itself, doesn't invalidate his argument, his attempts to pass off his "work" as an official paper published by the National Academy of Sciences tends to lessen his credibility...
In reality, neither Robinson's paper nor OISM's petition drive had anything to do with the National Academy of Sciences, which first heard about the petition when its members began calling to ask if the NAS had taken a stand against the Kyoto treaty. Robinson was not even a climate scientist. He was a biochemist with no published research in the field of climatology, and his paper had never been subjected to peer review by anyone with training in the field. In fact, the paper had never been accepted for publication anywhere, let alone in the NAS Proceedings. It was self-published by Robinson, who did the typesetting himself on his own computer.
Certainly, there are concerns about global warming, but trusting the "facts" contained in the article isn't a good idea.
Also, global warming, to my layman's understanding, entails greater fluctuations in temperature. The winters will get colder and the summers, hotter. One cold winter doesn't disprove global warming.
<center><a href = "http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com"><img src = http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/adfseasons2.gif title = "turn turn turn" width = 300 height = 100></a>
Can't we all just get a lawn?</center>