[epistasis]

>in the rush to talk about its warming effect, many choose to ignore the positive effect of CO2 in the atmosphere <with respect> to its importance as a carbon source for plants.

I'm not sure if you're meaning to, but your diction comes across as extremely biased. "Rush to talk" imputes a a hurriedness that does not seem justified based on any discussion I've seen. Also, a "choice" to "ignore" a particular effect, imputes a conscious decision to omit something that may be important. This uncharitable framing seems to be in error, as your own link doesn't seem very optimistic about greening countering climate change.

>“Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.

The actual paper is quite interesting!

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n8/full/nclimate30...

And it's very important to study, but I don't understand the need to impute bad motives to others not involved in the HN discussion.