There is no such animal as a collective peer-reviewed paper. Yes, once you make claims about me, you have to deal with my "ignorance" and to prove that I'm wrong. Quoting some public domain "entry level ecology or biology textbook" should not be a problem, not? And how is this related to the question that the regions were they can, successfully, survive change with an increase in average temperature or average cloudiness/precipitation/CO2 levels? How does this prevent humans, knowing about these changes, from supporting the good animals and plants in various ways? How does this lead to the strange extreme result that only the bad organisms spread, and the good organisms not at all, which is what the media presentation suggests? Yes, you repeat yourself, and completely without proving me wrong on anything. Because I have never suggested that there will be no bad consequences of climate change, I have not even claimed there will be more good than bad consequences. I have even written, explicitly, that every climate change requires investments to adapt to the new climate. You try to suggest that your trivialities would somehow show that I'm wrong - which is complete nonsense. All you provide are arguments that harmful effects are more important - but the point was that there are no positive effects at all. And this in a situation where it is quite clear that the opposite - cooling toward an ice age - would be much more harmful. The usual "you are stupid" repetitions disposed. Ok, you read media in some other universe, where NYT writes 63% pro Trump, and the media write a fair amount about the positive effects of global warming. If you have hallucinations, I'm sorry for you. But as long as you don't quote my postings about GMO which support your claim, you will be call a liar.