That's an interesting proposition Fixator but forests are not really in the hunt when it is realised that the world's oceans via the activity of plankton absorb about 95% of CO2. In fact there is some evidence that forests of certain species and at different ages produce a net input to GHG in the form of methane. A better suggestion than growing more forests, to deal with this problem, has been to beef up the amount of ocean plankton through the application of appropriate fertilizers.
The greenhouse argument is not really about CO2 pollution but about the property that poly atomic gases such as CO2 exhibit when subjected to two kinds of radiation. CO2 is transparent to ultra violet radiation (light coming in from the sun) but opaque to infra red radiation that is produced by the ultra violet radiation heating the earths surface. The albedo effect (when ultra violet is reflected back into the atmosphere by ice for example) means that that portion of incoming radiation has no practical GH effect.
Though one of the fathers of physical chemistry, Svante Arrhenius (1859 - 1927), worked out the theoretical change in temperature that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would produce and in fact his is the theory that the IPCC's report is based on, what is not really known is a quantifiable relationship between atmospheric CO2 levels and its effect on temperature in an exceptionally complex earth climate system. eg. the fact that the modelling on how long it would take take arctic ice to melt has presently got it so horribly wrong only indicates how little the IPCC experts really understand the complexity of earth's climate system and how it works.
