We have been adding much if it back at a much faster rate. We are shifting the equilibrium, to what degree I don't know, but any unbalanced changes to the total amount of carbon in the cycle will shift it.

We're dumping almost all of it into the atmosphere, either it stays there or it gets absorbed somewhere else. Now wherever it gets absorbed, ocean, vegetation, whatever, now it's equilibrium is off too, and it either has to offload the extra carbon somewhere else, or change itself to account for it.

A small change in temperature, even a few degrees, will put thousands of square miles of glacier ice above its melting point. It could put millions of tons of frozen methane above its melting point, setting off a self-sustaining chain reaction of global warming.

Our current ecosystem is not as stable as you might think. Indeed, it's only been this was for a relatively (geologically) short period of time.

Total human CO2 emissions primarily from use of coal, oil, and natural gas and the production of cement are currently about 5.5 GT C per year.

… it is estimated that the atmosphere contains 750 Gt C; the surface ocean contains 1,000 Gt C; vegetation, soils, and detritus contain 2,200 Gt C; and the intermediate and deep oceans contain 38,000 Gt C (3). Each year, the surface ocean and atmosphere exchange an estimated 90 Gt C; vegetation and the atmosphere, 60 Gt C; marine biota and the surface ocean, 50 Gt C; and the surface ocean and the intermediate and deep oceans, 100 Gt C (3).

When the Sun delivers extra energy, as it has done recently, the oceans warm and release extra CO2. An honest system of capping would be very difficult to administer even if it was not a stupid thing to do.

We all know that the CO2 capping scheme is nothing but a power grab by unelected and irresponsible administrators. The people of the United States would be the goats, and would bear the brunt of the costs. Why should our (?) Congress vote for such a thing?

It seems inevitable that, some day, Congress will pass legislation meant to cut greenhouse-gas emissions.

One can only hope.

We may argue about the extent of human action on global warming, but I think we can all agree that dumping tons of CO2 into our atmosphere is not a good long-term strategy.

As a liberal who reads the WSJ everyday, I will say that they are almost the exact opposite of Fox News. While there opinion page is about as Republican-centric as any in the media, they have a pretty impressive wall between the opinion page editors and the news gathering operation. Frequently, I ignore the opinion pages but they at least try to keep blatant politics out of the news, which is the direct opposite of Fox in which you can't tell the difference between opinion and the news most of the time.

I think that the WSJ would be better served by at least feigning respect for some opposing views in the editorial section, but you probably won't find half as many liberals who have as significant a problem with the WSJ as they do with Fox.