Even a cursory literature review will show you that there are almost no positive articles published regarding climate change, and it is patently false that not a single place or peoples on this planet could benefit from a warmer climate.

There may not be an explicit conspiracy, but there is an emergent, cultural force which has lead to the politicization of sciences, and I imagine you are aware that scientists have quite a bit of leeway in what they choose to study/report.

Anecdote, I know, but I say this as someone who went to school with future climate scientists, and their minds were made up long before they made it to grad school.

Whether you think climate change is catastrophic or not, you must agree that there is not enough skeptical literature available, and that makes it difficult for me personally to swallow the narrative without hesitation.

Yes there is a paucity of articles on the benefits of climate change. Is it because of conspiracy or because the effects are overwhelmingly bad?

Overwhelmingly physics grads enter grad school believing that the Earth revolves around the sun. There's a lack of articles in physics journals to the contrary. There's a lack of skeptical literature.

The lack of articles touting the benefits of climate change do not indicate there is a conspiracy nor should one think that there should be such articles in any but a small amount. This is especially so given the political climate in the U.S. where people are skeptical of climate science.

This phenomenon is circular. There is a void of publications on the subject, therefore, scientists and laymen begin to believe that there is no second side, and, combine that with politics, we end up with a seemingly settled science when, in truth, the process has not been scientific for at least a decade.

It is also absurd to be so certain about our potential impact on something as complex and chaotic as climate. Especially considering we also rely on trends on the order of millions of years, and we are making a judgment based on many orders of magnitude less time. Is it a bet worth making? Sure, in my opinion, but without some published skepticism, climate science may as well be propaganda when it comes to convincing people to act.

"It is also absurd to be so certain about our potential impact on something as complex and chaotic as climate."

This is where you are wrong. You may not understand it but the science is solid. It is well known what happens when too much green house gases occur. The physics is indisputable.

It is never only about physics when we talk about impact of climate change. Even if you talk about catastrophic runaway warming, it is caused by ecosystem-level feedback loops.

The question raised is what are the possible net-good feedback loops? Will flora benefit from it widely and expand everywhere? Will that be a good thing?

To paraphrase: This is where you are wrong. You may not understand it but the science is far from solid. It is not well known what happens when ecosystems react to too much greenhouse gases. "The physics is indisputable." is a hollow statement.

disclaimer: I am for active prevention of such things occurring, just for strategic reasons like "we don't have a clue what we're doing and we are apparently doing SOMETHING". But to claim it is obvious and "indisputable" sounds like dangerous propaganda to me.

I was responding to this statement:

"It is also absurd to be so certain about our potential impact on something as complex and chaotic as climate."

It is possible to be certain about impacts on climate. Increase CO2 in the atmosphere by a factor of a trillion. There will be runaway warming in the immediate term. This is known and well understood. I'm not claiming we are near this point but the suggestion that we can't know some effects because climate is hard is absurd.

Certain aspects can be certain, sure, but overall effects are beyond our understanding. We just have too small sample size ...

But while we disagree on what we know you're right that it's not clear cut and one can argue we already know quite a bit - e.g. those immediate effects is something I can imagine we have good grasp on, I've not studied that in depth as most debates are about ultimate consequences.

Thanks for new PoV!

No, but there is a huge bias in reporting favoring bad news.

What evidence do you have that there is such a bias? Have you considered the possibility that the prevalence of bad news as you call it is indeed the truth? That the absence of good news might be because the positive effects are dwarfed by the negative?

Let me rephrase, and maybe you'll agree.

If one million people in a city don't get murdered, and one does get murdered, whose fate will be reported as news?

The murdered one of course. And the reporting will be truthful. But that doesn't mean most people get murdered.

This is not at all relevant to the discussion. The one getting murdered is newsworthy and noteworthy. The many that do not is not newsworthy.

Rapidly increasing the temperature of the planet will have devastating consequences. Write news articles on its few benefits is not newsworthy in light of the impending devastation.

I note that now you're agreeing with yostrovs who originally asked "Why wouldn't a modest rise in temperature do some good in at least some ways?".

I never disputed this or implied otherwise. It's quite clear from what I have written that I acknowledge there will be some benefits. It's equally clear from what I've written that the lack of articles on this is not indicative of politics or some other nefarious reason.