David, you refer to my saying that when CO2 was much higher the sun was fainter, and you thought I was saying that a fainter sun means a hotter world. Let me explain. If the sun was fainter, it means that the world would have been even hotter when CO2 was 7000 ppm if the sun has been stronger back then. As for a possible reduction in solar energy in coming decades, this would have only a small effect compared to the impact of a 40% and rising increase in greenhouse gases.

Read this article: There’s only a two year reprieve if the sun gets cold — though northern countries might feel it

You also wrote:

“You talk about a rise of 7C being able to kill us all, but in the same breath you also admit that humans can survive a much wider range of temperatures than a mere 7C”

I don’t know where you got that notion from. It’s not from anything I wrote. There is an enormous difference between humans and other homeotherms not being able to survive wet-bulb temperature of 35 °C for extended period (which will happen with a rise of 7 °C in average global surface temperature) and being able to tolerate a range of temperature, like from 20 °C to 27 °C (your “range” of 7 °C). I most certainly don’t dispute the science that shows that we cannot physically tolerate wet bulb temperatures above 35 °C for an extended period.

http://web.science.unsw.edu.au/~stevensherwood/PNAS-2010-Sherwood-0913352107.pdf

As for my comment about “bringing back the dinosaurs”, I refer you to:

Regarding sea level, a one metre rise in sea level will be, I don’t know how to put it in words you will understand, disastrous for many regions around the world? As we wrote in our article “This is one of the more concerning outcomes of climate change. Between 140 and 220 million people live on land that may be below sea level by the end of the century if CO2 emissions continue on their current trend, and three times that number may be affected.” And as we also pointed out in our article, the IPCC estimate is now regarded by experts as very conservative. The thing is, too, that the sea won’t stop rising at the stroke of midnight on 31 December 2100. When WAIS melts completely, it alone will raise sea level by 3 or 4 metres (up to around 13 feet).

In relation to climate refugees, in 2013 alone it is estimated that 22 million people were displaced by natural hazard events. Haiyan alone displaced more than four million people.

These numbers will increase as climate change kicks in. (See the prior para for the number of people who’ll be permanently displaced just by rising sea level, then figure out where they can move to.)

Bjorn Lomborg’s article is wrong from beginning to end. Read this:

I’d say the sixth major extinction event is already underway. You can click here to read some papers on the subject.

As for you dismissing the award-winning climate science resource of skepticalscience.com on the basis of some silly drawings someone stole from their private forum, yes, I ignored the silliness of your logical fallacy. (Deniers like to refer to SkepticalScience people as Nazis and SS. Deniers are a crude lot.) However, I’ve written about that before already:

I understand there are a few people who pretend to have found a sudden concern for the poor of the world, while at the same time wanting to condemn them to be drowned under rising seas and flash floods, killed by heat waves, starved by famine, left without water from drought, and suffocated by smog from dirty coal plants and car exhausts. That’s their prerogative. I prefer to modernise and continue the shift to clean energy for the benefit of humanity and all life on earth.