About 200 people die from coal mining annually so the rest is all due to the pollution of burning coal and the toxic leakage from "decommissioned" coal mines.

That's fossil fuels dirty little secret.

They don't want you to drive an electric car because you'll see that you never needed them in the first place. We can get our energy from the sun, wind, geothermal heat from below the Earth, tides and wave power. We don't need no stinkin' fossil fuels!

The IPCC report did indeed state that global warming would mean more extreme warm temperatures, but it also pointed to fewer extreme cold temperatures. Because more people almost everywhere on the planet die each year from cold temperatures than from warm temperatures, the overall impact of global warming will be fewer deaths from temperature extremes. Indeed, according to one estimate, by midcentury, about 400,000 more people will die from heat than would have perished at current temperatures, but 1.8 million fewer people will die from cold. Unfortunately, nondeaths are a nonstory.

I always listen to economists when it comes to climatology.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm having chest pains that might indicate a heart attack so I need to call my car mechanic.

But someone with a Bachelor of Arts degree is a climate expert? Maybe a professional cartoonist would be even better?

Your 'reasoning' is inconsistent.

Anymore than his Ph.D makes him qualified to send a man to the moon, or perform brain surgery.

And who exactly are you referring to when you mention a Bachelor of Arts degree (something that was never in my post)?

Al Gore and Peter Jacques.

Just so I know to whom I should consider qualified. What degrees/disciplines are necessary to be qualified to speak on climate issues? You've already indicated that people with a degree in Arts, Political Science, and Economics are unqualified to speak on climate. How about physics? Meteorology? Biology? etc.

Please enlighten this poor benighted soul.

Lomborg, however, has been so discredited by his botched predictions and laughable, twisted citations for his infamous book that you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel using him as a reference.

There are currently 1 billion people around the world that live in a food-insecure situation: http://foodsecurity.stanford.edu/research/food_and_nutrition_security

"Food insecurity deaths during the past 20 years outnumber war deaths by a factor of at least 5 to 1."

There are very few scenarios in which the projected warming effects of AGW do much to increase global food security, and numerous scenarios in which they make things worse (in some cases much worse).

Hmmmm, I wonder why Lomborg didn't mention food production AT ALL in the piece you linked to?

I'm waiting.......