Ah, so this is really all about the ax you have to grind with Greenpeace. Thanks for making it clear what you're really after here. Carry on, then!
No, this is really all about the truth - as determined by the best peer-reviewed science available.
Of course, you only have dictums and obfuscation attempts. And, of course, they fail to cover up anything.
I just find source-warring with you very tedious. Your view that climate change is ultimately economically beneficial is a fringe opinion based on massaging select data.
Besides that, even the author admits in the paper
that many of the possible positive effects have not been evaluated or researched adequately. He's essentially speculating that it might
be beneficial for certain economics in certain areas with certain resource situations based on some factors that are predictable and many that are not. Hardly a ringing endorsement for "climate change is good!"
As always, there should be more research, but it's very telling that the IPCC doesn't endorse that viewpoint even when walking back some of its more dire past predictions.