So should I just let them rope in the rest against me. I am not interested in going to war across the sea till i can do it safely and have cleared my landmass (which will take time)
Yes, it's usually best to try and control your own continent first.
Is there any negative to me from these phony wars?
Well, you can't trade with civs you're at war with.
The only fighting that will happen is me upgrading to elite's against some landings, so will war wearness be an issue?
War itself does not lead to war weariness. What leads to war weariness is:
* having a unit attacked, regardless of whether it wins or loses;
* losing a unit in battle;
* having a unit without defense taken;
* being in enemy's territory during an interturn;
* losing a town.
So if you now and then experience a landing, but you can brush the invading units away, you will not start to experience war weariness. It's different if dozens of your units would die while trying to deal with the ivaders, but from your post I understand this is not the case.
I have heard people talk of war happyness is this a situation where it may kick in?
You should already be enjoying big war happiness: it kicks in as soon as a nation declares on you, so you should have war happiness from the Vikings, the French and the Arabs. What I would advise you to do is to look at your population as soon as a nation declares on you, because you will see a happiness boost immediately, even in anarchy.
A question: since Russia is on the same landmass as you and the Vikings, can't you get them in an alliance? This perhaps could weaken both the Vikings and Russia, and give you an easier time later to take over the continent. Even if it are russian towns you'd like to conquer first, it might help to weaken Russia with an alliance first before invading their territory.