I legitimately want to ask you how you can be so sure that our doomsday scenarios are accurate, when we still have a fledgling understanding of a massive chaotic system like climate, and when almost all research has been purposefully negative?
If you look hard enough, you'll find anything. That's why skepticism is necessary. You'll at least agree that anything remotely pro climate change is taboo, I hope, and there is no room for taboo in science, in my opinion.
Edit: hell, how long have we known about deep ocean currents? Stratification of the subsea into various isoclines and thermoclines? Calthrates? People seem to underestimate how complex climate is, and how much we've yet to discover.
Like a plague, the millions or billions of human deaths is all the research we need. No benefit is going to counterbalance that.
Just to take one example (of many) of deadly things that are already happening that you yourself mentioned: permafrost melting.
"More arable land" also means "the release of incredibly dangerous, dormant pathogens like anthrax". Kinda makes the "arable land" moot.
But here's the thing - the weather systems on the planet are rather complex systems that are in a somewhat stable equilibrium. Changing temperature will affect that equilibrium, which will mean rather impressive upheaval. Both a warming and a cooling will have catastrophic effects for humanity. What we should pursue are strategies that prevent shifting too far from that fragile balance. No matter which direction.
Read the text. Somewhat stable. I'm well aware it moves, but it's moving much more rapidly than anything we've experienced, and at least a large part of that is without any doubt anthropogenic.
So how about you stop trying to parse words, and engage with the issue?
Sure, there'd be benefits: fewer lines at amusement parks, all the food you can eat, etc. But that's so far from a net "good" that only a psychopath or moron would publish a paper with that argument.