This man is a blinkered fool. I don't want to write a novella pointing out all the factual errors in this video, which are copious. Perhaps the biggest lie is the claim that warming has levelled off in the past 17 years. It hasn't. The only way it looks remotely like it has is when you dishonestly cherry pick a sampling range that starts at an abnormal high and ends at an abnormal low, rather like comparing the temperature in mid-July to that in mid-February (for the northern hemisphere), and saying, "See? The planet's actually getting cooler."

His reasoning is far more stupid than his dishonesty. Photosynthesis operates more efficiently with more CO2. That's true. But you know what else it works better with? Water. In fact, it shuts down entirely without water, and if you raise the global temperature by increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, you create a lot more desert, where there's plenty of CO2 but no %$?#ing water. Plants are not going to thrive under those conditions.
Nor are they going to thrive when completely under water, which is where thousands of square miles of land will be if morons like him are given the time of day.

Comparing him to Galileo is absurd.

Ohhh FFS, really? Comparing Happer to Galileo is like comparing boots to a car... sure, you can be transported in both...
What a bunch of shit, he has almost no credit, no honors, no publications so there you have it, no credit for him, ignore scientific troll. More of scientology then science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#Honors

Here in Poland, we have no winter, no snow for last 5 years. Instead of playing in snow with my son on Xmas, we ware riding bikes with light autumn jackets on our backs............... Climate is not only changing, it has already changed.

Mr. Happner deliberately confuses weather with climate ( #1 as well). The minimum period that can be climatically interpreted is 30 years. So even if the global temperature would have sunk in the last 20 consecutive years it wouldn't mean much. I dare to assert that his cost-risk-assessment is purely speculative. Sure, a warmer planet with more Co2 in the atmosphere would be beneficial to plant life. The critical point is the pace of the climate shift. Will the ecosystems be able to adapt fast enough (or collapse temporarily) and if so, will the following large-scale migrations poise a threat to peace?

In order to make the right political decisions we should pay close attention to the constantly refined model climate-scientists are developing and not dismiss them as a "religious cult".

So high CO2 concentration has no impact on the climate AND is great for my plants? I think i will start a farm on venus and make a fortune! ;-)

Even if the average temperature would be steady (which it's not), the oceans are still soaking up a lot of extra energy, leading to melting ice caps, rising sea levels (Netherlands is gonna be pissed), and higher sea temperatures which release even more CO2.
Not to mention the increase in storms, rains and draughts.

But... I can ride my big ass SUV without guilt, cuz the plants love that shit!

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/weather-climate/temperature.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20413-warmer-oceans-release-co2-faster-than-thought.html#.VO-qz_mG_RU

Well...he's not actually denying climate change. He just believes that it will be mostly beneficial rather than not. I'm not sure I can agree with that, but then again I'm not a scientist. I would have liked to heard him address the melting icecaps and the rise in sea level. That's probably the scariest part of the over warming trend.

And I thought the biggest limiting factor on food production was energy (in terms of ammoniac production with the habermann-bosch-synthesis for fertilizer).

The guy is no professor, he used to be one, in optics and spectroscopy, so his knowledge in the field of climate change from a professional point of view doesn't look too credible.

Sure we can create a world where plants grow even faster, but I would like to know how it affects us humans before we go even higher in Co2. And I'd rather have this researched by scientists who work on it all their life, rather than an pensioned optics professor who has read a few articles about greenhouses and now has a few ideas how this all should work...

These scientists have said that any observed warming is more likely to be attributable to natural causes than to human activities.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/09/prominent-climatologists-skeptical-of.html
Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook University
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University
William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University
Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware
Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.
Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University
Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia
Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville
George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa

Robert M. Carter, director of the Australian Office of the Ocean Drilling Program (ODP)
Ian Clark, founder of Oceans alive searches for the secrets of ultimate health, cause he knows what's the real deal and what is "snake oil" http://www.blogtalkradio.com/vividliferadio/2013/03/28/ian-clark-secrets-to-unlock-your-ultimate-health
Chris de Freitas, Papers financed by Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology
David Douglass sits in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
... (just the first 4). I can research any of those you think is more credible.

I would bet you cannot find more than 2 of those who aren't paid by the oil industry or aren't total whack jobs.

They still may be right, but if you are paid by the tobacco industry and say smoking is no problem for our health, that might not be too trustworthy.

They are all credible,but you think the ones receiving grants from the government are a much better bet? You don't understand that if they differ from what they are paid to say they will lose their grant money? This is all about government control of our lives and industry , nothing else.
The earth's temps rising one degree over 100 years is natural and has happened in the past centuries before the industrial revolution. The sun actually controls the earth's climate more than any other thing,so how can that be changed?

#11 guy in the video is "american physicist who has specialized in the study of atomic physics, optics and spectroscopy", how is his opinion on global warming anything but an opinion ( since he is not an expert in given field )?
when your car makes strange noises you don't go to your doctor asking for an advice or car check, in the same way you don't go to your mechanic for an opinion on that sharp pain in your head

/edit
Don Easterbrook is comparing a single Ice sample with "present data" from 1855 to make his points
William M. Gray was a speaker at the Heartland Institute's 7th International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC7), which was financed with 67 million from ExxonMobil.
Ole Humlum is hard to research since his papers aren't translated into english, and I don't speak norwegian.
William Kininmonth is financed by the Lavoisier Group who in turn is financed by oil companies
David Legates, plain and simple, funded by ExxonMobile
Anthony Lupo, also funded by Heartland Institute
Tad Murty, financed by Fraser Institute, funded by Exxon Mobile and Imperial Oil
Tim Patterson, funded by Heartland Institute
Murry Salby, sacked from Macquarie University, for refusing to teach and traveling around on university money, no connection found to exxon within my 3 minutes of research
Nir Shaviv, Heartland Institute
Fred Singer, denies passive smoking has any impact on lung cancer. Denies FCKW impact on ozone, denies Co2 connection with global warming. Gathers 5000 Dollars each month from Heartland Institute.
Roy Spencer, gathered $2.32 million in donations from ExxonMobil
George H. Taylor, Heartland institute
Jan Veizer, wasn't aware he was listed by Heartland in 2012. Didn't stop him from getting sponsored by them in 2009.

#11 don't understand your comment. You think someone who gets a funding of 2,32 million dollars will say something that opposes Exxons profits? I have worked for a university, with a government funding of a few hundred thousand and never have I had someone that wanted to rewrite my results. That might happen, but I find it more probable to happen in the private sector.

#13 When the government has an agenda to make the people believe what they want them to ( like Hitler blaming the Jews ) then yes I think the climate scientists will skew "facts" to support that agenda. You do remember Climategate from a couple of years ago don't you?
E-mails between some of the most published scientists were leaked that proved they were hiding evidence of the warming not happening.That was all swept under the rug by like-minded scientists.
A hundred years from now scientists will be looking back at all the wasted trillions of dollars that were spent trying to control our climate and just shake their heads at the stupidity of it all.

ps The Heartland Institute is a 31-year-old national nonprofit research organization dedicated to finding and promoting ideas that empower people. What is your problem with them?

It's amazing to see the liberal radicals what to harm the man when the disagree. The liberals are the wimps in the middle of the herd relying on other to protect them. Harmless little people and the sheepe of the whim of man.

#15. My first language is English. Would you mind translating what you just wrote?

My problem with heartland, as written above is that they were funded with 67 million US$ in 2009 alone just from Exxon, which was paid out to the speakers. Nonprofit means that every cent that goes in goes out, in this case to the speakers, thus it is a nice way of paying someone without putting him on your own payroll.

From what I understand all Carbon fuels (Coal, Oil even Diamonds) end up becoming CO2 when burnt. Thus a oil company funding scientists with 7 digit amounts, that say CO2 should be even higher looks very biased to me.

I don't know whether the climate is changing or not, but taking a look at venus there has happened a CO2 induced climate change. Which concentration of CO2 has lead to this effect is far beyond my knowledge.

Lets make this simple. CO2 is heavier than air and does not rise up in any great amount.Have you all forgotten when just 30 years ago they told us fluorocarbons where going to kill us all? before that PHOSPHATES.and after that the ozone layer had a hole in it? How do you make a hole in a layer of gas? Go out side and drill a hole in the air. Good luck with that. Then it was encephalitis,then legionnaires disease, then aids,then bird flu,then swine flu, then H1N1. Give it a damn rest.All of these deadly things have resulted in 7,000,000,000+ population.Still waiting for this mess killing off of people or anything else for that matter.

#18. I'll make it even simpler for you:

Eat good food, and fruit and vegetables.
Drink alcohol only in moderation.
Do not smoke.
Get plenty of exercise.

... and you'll die anyway.

#9 sux2bu, not impressed with you just copying and pasting a list of skeptical scientists from Wikipedia here. Anyone can do that. Proves that you really don't know anything about this subject. But that's okay, I'm not surprised.