It'll tell you the opposite of that, to some degree.
Read the article. I don't know if we read the same article, but what I took from it was that climate change affects animal migration, behavior etc. Some animails will become extinct, others will thrive. The ecosystem could come in disarray and that would be bad for everyone. Especially humans. I think we're back to Carlin's quote. Probably not an ELE, but nobody really knows.
I think you should read the article again, without thinking about Carlin's quote. You might want to supplement it with Edward O. Wilson's The Future of Life
In a nutshell, species must migrate towards the poles to live within the temperature range they're adapted to. This migration must occur at rates typically in the range of 0.08 km per year to 1.26 km per year due to the current average annual changes in climate. However, they run into barriers, such as suburbia, urban developments, water, no more water, and mountain ranges (which are impassable not due to topology, but due to climate barriers). As a result, the species then go extinct. This rate of extinction occurs at a rate much greater than the rate of new species coming into being. The net effect is less biodiversity, which results in less ecosystem services.
Carlin's quote is essentially drivel. Humans are in no less or more of a predicament than any other species. In many senses, they are in a better predicament, as they have the ability to migrate, and animals do not. However, everything is interdependent on everything else, so it affects everything in a negative way. The net effect is less. Less, as in:
- Less ecosystem services
- Less biodiversity
- Less undiscovered knowledge
Some boneheads will argue that there are benefits, such as increased usable land in the Arctic tundra, and so on. Such individuals are scientifically challenged and have allowed their thinking to be swayed by individuals and groups who study economics and political science within a vacuum that is absent the study of ecology and the environment, which is the foundation society it is built upon. A warmer Canada and arctic is not a net gain, nor even a gain at all, but a loss. That future world does not include an equivalent amount of biodiversity. That world is a less rich world to live in.