We'd expect most changes to the Earth's climate to be bad (on net) for its current inhabitants because the Earth has been settled in ways that are appropriate to its current climate. Species are adapted to their current environment, so if weather patterns change and the temperature goes up or down, or precipitation increases or decreases, or whatever else, that's more likely to be bad for them than good.

Similarly, humans grow crops in places where those crops grow well, live where they have access to water but not too many floods (and where they are on land rather than underwater), and so on. If the climate changes, then the number of places on Earth that would be a good place for a city might not change, but fewer of our existing cities will be in one of those places.

There are some expected benefits of global warming (e.g., "Crop productivity is projected to increase slightly at mid- to high latitudes for local mean temperature increases of up to 1-3°C depending on the crop, and then decrease beyond that in some regions"). But, unsurprisingly, climate scientists are projecting more costs than benefits, and a net cost. News articles are likely to have a further bias towards explaining negative events rather than positive ones, and may be of uneven quality (as waveman pointed out), so if you want a thorough account of the costs and benefits you should look at something like the IPCC report, which was the source of my quote about increased crop productivity.