The failure of the Biosphere 2 experiment indicates that scientists still don't understand the mechanisms by which nature maintains a viable equilibrium. So where does that leave the poor layman in such an contentious debate as the global environment? Who does the layman believe? I know the environmental movement is politically motivated. The truth lies in the middle somewhere between the two extremes ("the sky is falling" vs. "no problemo") but closer to which end? I think we still need to keep an open mind toward science rather than base our decision solely upon political beliefs. Can the amount of CO2 released by burning oil and coal overwhelm the rate at which the oceans and plant life can aborb it? I don't know.
The rate at which atmospheric CO2 is increasing indicates that the current rate of absorption by oceans and plant life is being exceeded by the rate of addition to the atmosphere.