The Hockey Schtick: Dr. Lindzen's New Paper: 0.7°C temperature change from doubled CO2

They find on the basis of empirical satellite observations that the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 levels is a mean of 0.7°C, implying CO2 has negative (not positive as assumed by IPCC models) feedbacks on water vapor, and that all of the IPCC models exaggerate climate sensitivity. This is in close agreement with other peer reviewed papers which have examined empirical satellite and balloon data.

Top Environmental Advisor Advocates Separating Climate Science and Public Policy | Northfield.org

"There's a very high level of comfort with our understanding with the impact of the human role," Moss stated, and this conclusion is based on "a whole lot of different studies, not just one or two. This isn't something where you can negate one finding and have the conclusion go away."

Researcher: Media Coverage of Climate Change Skeptics Can Mislead Public | UANews.org

Outlier voices have gained more prominence and traction in mass media over time.

The Reference Frame: El Nino is transitioning to ENSO-neutral conditions

Because the CO2 concentrations will go from 390 ppm today to 560 ppm in 2100, which is an increase by the factor of 1.44, we may expect the biomass per plant to increase by the factor of 1.44^{0.35} = 1.14 i.e. by 14 percent. The CO2 growth itself may allow us to feed 8 billion people instead of 7 billion people. A hypothetical temperature increase by one or two degrees would make another positive contribution, possibly a more substantial one.

But technological progress is likely to be much more important than these two pretty much natural factors.