EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt indicated in an interview this week that some global warming could be good for humans. He's technically not wrong, but he's overstating and muddling a scientific consensus that's unequivocally saying the opposite.
The bottom line: There will be some benefits to a warmer planet, notably in colder regions like Canada and Russia. But, overall the negative effects far outweigh the benefits in colder regions.
Quoted: "Global warming is plausibly beneficial in some places, like where it is presently cold. So Administer Pruitt isn’t way off here," said Joseph Makjut, director of climate policy at the Niskanen Center, a libertarian think tank. "The rub is that global warming is really bad in places where it is already hot. More people live in hot places, so we can expect net losses."
One level deeper: The United Nations’ summary of the world’s foremost scientific literature has answered this question: "Are the future impacts of climate change only negative? Might there be positive impacts as well?" Here it is:
“Overall, the report identifies many more negative impacts than positive impacts projected for the future, especially for high magnitudes and rates of climate change. Climate change will, however, have different impacts on people around the world and those effects will vary not only by region but over time, depending on the rate and magnitude of climate change.”
Between the lines: It's hard to know for sure whether Pruitt is being disingenuous or is ill-informed on the science. It's a common position taken by people who question the mainstream scientific consensus that human activity is driving Earth’s temperature up over the past century.
For the record: A request for additional comment to EPA regarding the UN's address of the issue was not immediately returned.
Go deeper: Climate scientists roundly refuted with very detailed responses an article in May 2016 that said in "many ways global warming will be a good thing."