Lost for words

The sea levels thing is a bit of a weird one. It's based on the assumption that the poles are land masses covered in ice. Which as far as I know, is still not established. If there is more ice in water than ice on land, warming seas would cause the sea levels to fall. Anyway, most data at the moment shows the earth has actually been getting colder for the last few years, (which no doubt is why "global warming" has been rebranded as "climate change"). This could itself cause sea levels to rise if the above case were true. Oh well.

I'm afraid you're a bit misinformed BQ. It is very very well established that the majority of Antarctica is a land mass covered by 2 very large bits of ice. If one were to melt the sea level would rise by something like 10 metres, if the other went, it would be 70m. This is as near to a fact as anything that humans have knowledge about.
As for the old 'global warming rebranded as climate change' argument put forth by the likes of Nigel Lawson it's an argument put forward by those who have no other decent arguments. If you were to read any scientifc literature at all you would see that 'climatic change' has been used since the beginning, at least 30 years ago. 'Global warming' was a phrase created by, and for the use of, the press and the layperson.

Oh and the bit about 'more CO2 = more plants' is fantasy.