I don't trust that article at all. The links to the areas of the IPCC report if refers to are broken. It's a biased news article and doesn't appear to be properly referenced.

Here's what I've read on the subject.

http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/53689/PDF

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/312/5782/1918.short

First one estimates a 33% increase in crop yields due to Co2.

Second also estimates a rise, but states that it's less than expected and so probably won't offset negative effects of Climate Change (but fails to explain what those negative effects are).

Pretty sure 97% of everyone agrees.

Woah. That's a big jump. Especially considering big energy companies will be taxed under the most popular solutions: carbon taxes and ETS.

I don't like either of these solutions but I can't see either benefiting energy companies.

I don't know who Jesse Ventura is, but I don't see his logic.

To those concerned about the potential for bias in the 5 major temperature datasets, I personally rely on the ones that require the least 'adjustments': Argo bouys for ocean temp, and balloons and satellites for the atmosphere. 

Of course these all still have some adjustments made, but far less than the land based thermometers and ocean 'bucket' temp readings and are certainly more accurate than most proxies (tree rings etc) as far as I can tell. Most of the data is freely available.

Argo data is very hard to come by though. You have to personally request it from the Argo Centre themselves or (like I did) find studies that managed to get ahold of the data, like these guys:

http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/KD_InPress_final.pdf

This, like a lot of peer reviewed studies, actually indicates that extra heat has not gone into the oceans. Argo bouys are largely regarded as the most accurate ocean temperature readings from 700m to 2000m, and heat doesn't sink as far as my understanding of the laws of thermodynamics go.

It bothers me that the conversation is not changing based on the newest data. People are still committed to the idea of a need to mitigate catastrophic warming, including many influential people such as the leaders of most nations.

I am not a climate denier.

So you admit that there is a climate.

The 33% increased your article is reffering to is at 660 ppm. For instance the safe zone is estimated to be 350 ppm we are at 400 ppm and the limit to keep temperature below 2C increase is estimated to be 450 ppm. http://sustainabilityadvantage.com/2014/01/07/co2-why-450-ppm-is-dangerous-and-350-ppm-is-safe/

we'll never have 33% increase in an open environement.

As the second study suggested, 33% is optimistic, but 2C warming based on 450ppm seems overly pessimistic. The article you referenced isn't peer reviewed and is written by a high school teacher. He seems to reference an article though that appears well written, but asserts that the global warming will be catastrophic and that a tax on carbon is the only way to stop it. Are these people scientists or politicians? They should stick with the data and let the policy makers worry about the policies, if and when they're needed.

Here:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-012-1375-3?LI=true

Around 2C warming for a doubling of Co2.

And this one suggests it is around .51C for a doubling:

http://iacweb.ethz.ch/doc/publications/Chylek-et-al-JGR2007-climate-sens.pdf

I can provide many more below 2C estimates if you'd like, as climate Co2 sensitivity is where I've been doing most of my reading.

I really doubt the .51C for a doubling. We are already higher than that. for instance 2015 was at 0.85C and the last 5 year mean wat near 0.70C.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Edit : the 660ppm is a doubling from 1983(date of the article) 330ppm concentration. the article you linked that says 2c for a doubling is probably referring to pre-industrial concentration which was around 280. 

The estimated 2°C rise occurs throughout 1000 years in the first paper.  

The second paper briefly mentions in the introduction that a doubling of carbon dioxide would lead to an increase in the range of 1.3°C  to 2.3°C, but the paper has nothing to do with those numbers.  They were referencing another paper that produced those values.  I'm not sure where the .51 value originates.