If your head is permanently stuck in the sand, you may have missed this article. I am not sure why this has not been covered on the nightly news..wait, oh yea, I do know why, they only run stories which promote AGW. More and more stories are surfacing which shows the benefit of warmer temps. The Romans knew it during the medieval optimum, and we have been lucky enough to benefit. Now if only the supporters would realize it.
What you're basically asking without knowing it is the frequent question "why don't we ever hear about the positive impacts of global warming?". For example, Siberia becomes inhabitable, colder areas become better for agriculture, etc. And yes, northern Africa will probably receive more rain.
"This desert-shrinking trend is supported by climate models, which predict a return to conditions that turned the Sahara into a lush savanna some 12,000 years ago." http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html
Meahwhile southern Africa will experience crippling drought: http://www.scidev.net/en/news/decades-of-drought-predicted-for-southern-africa.html
Along with Australia, the southwestern US, and many other areas. While there will be some benefits in isolated geographical areas, the net effect of rapid climate change will be unquestionably negative. What you're doing is cherrypicking those few benefits and ignoring the many negative impacts.
But hey, we can all move to the Sahara and Siberia, right?
Whether the "medieval optimum" was all it's cracked up to be in more than a few regions aside, Dana's right. Similar is the implication that it's okay if parts of the U.S. experience a drop in grain production, since Canada's climate will be warmer than now. But then, how much of that Northern territory has suitable soil etc. for comparable levels of productivity? I'm not sure how much wheat even the best farmers will get out of muskeg or the Precambrian Shield...
Of course, the National Geographic left this part till the very end of the article (but I'm sure it attracted plenty of the attention that all of today's hyper-commercialized media relish):
"This issue is still rather uncertain," Haarsma said.
Max Planck's Claussen said North Africa is the area of greatest disagreement among climate change modelers.
Forecasting how global warming will affect the region is complicated by its vast size and the unpredictable influence of high-altitude winds that disperse monsoon rains, Claussen added.
"Half the models follow a wetter trend, and half a drier trend."
Well, not listening to what most creeps say, i think we need to release LESS CO2 and LESS heat. Uhh, maybe they don't talk about the positive things, but they will never make up for the bad things. And who wants to move to Siberia or whatever? Not me! Take my advice and go green, you won't regret it. What could there be to regret about recycling and such??? Even if Global Warming doesn't exist and if it does but doesn't mean anything, would it really hurt to go a little "green"? Seriously!
You do realize more warming means more glacier and ice cap melt, consequently raising the sea level, don't you? Your whole "warmer is better" line is quite naive and shortsighted without bothering to think of the effects.