The arguments are fine but take no account of tipping points, catastrophic collapse and the costs of climate change induced mass migration.
How all this is discounted is relevant.
With a large enough "value of statistical life" the numbers can be made to work - it is undoubtedly correct that there will be fewer deaths due to cold winters with a couple of degrees extra on the mercury.
The green movement are struggling at the moment with recession induced apathy and a political backlash against "green taxes" that are pushing up energy bills. With publicity like this the green movement will only find it harder.
Worth a read. The views expressed in this article will be seen over and over again. It is important to know the background.
Why climate change is good for the world [Spectator]
Climate change has done more good than harm so far and is likely to continue doing so for most of this century. This is not some barmy, right-wing fantasy; it is the consensus of expert opinion. Yet almost nobody seems to know this. Whenever I make the point in public, I am told by those who are paid to insult anybody who departs from climate alarm that I have got it embarrassingly wrong, don’t know what I am talking about, must be referring to Britain only, rather than the world as a whole, and so forth.
To be precise, Prof Tol calculated that climate change would be beneficial up to 2.2˚C of warming from 2009 (when he wrote his paper). This means approximately 3˚C from pre-industrial levels, since about 0.8˚C of warming has happened in the last 150 years. The latest estimates of climate sensitivity suggest that such temperatures may not be reached till the end of the century — if at all. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose reports define the consensis, is sticking to older assumptions, however, which would mean net benefits till about 2080. Either way, it’s a long way off.