This video from http://co2science.org. If you want solid evidence that cutting CO2 is an attack on the planet, their site is the best place I know of on the internet.
The remarkable thing Dr Sherwood Idso has found in his experiment is that plant performance is more or less proportional to CO2 concentration: double CO2 is about double plant growth. That is an amazing and thought-provoking result. Other experiments described on co2science.org give lesser growth rates, so this one set of results should not be taken as a guarantee that exactly that much more growth is to be expected from that much more CO2, but it does show that these incredible growth rates are not outside the realm of the possible.
A simple question for all you "environmentalists" out there: Even if the scare campaign about rising temperatures is correct, what benefits (or averted damages) can you be sure you will obtain from holding back atmospheric CO2 that is at all comparable to the certain damage you will do to the Earth's capacity to create plant matter and therefore food for animals and humans alike?
In other words, if you starve a billion people by holding back the ability of their crops to grow, what will you give them in return? Avoided rising sea levels? Forget it, they are not even rising at all right now, and they certainly won't be flooding Al Gore's beachfront mansion any time soon (or else he wouldn't have bought it). Avoiding global warming? But warming has always been good for life and cooling bad. But even if you disagree, you had better be mighty sure of the benefit for them from holding back CO2, because the damage is certain and huge: you'll starve them.