I'm clearly on the record as being concerned about climate change and strongly in favour of implementing social policies (including carbon taxes) that will a) reduce GHG emissions and b) protect the most vulnerable, but because I don't quack like precisely the right kind of duck I'm routinely accused of somehow trivializing something, or being the enemy (this is not the first time I've had this kind of discussion, obviously). This is what you see from rival religions, not from scientists. I was involved in the 17 keV neutrino controversy, so I'm no stranger to scientific disagreement, and it simply doesn't have this strange dynamic.
If anyone is trivializing anything, it is Warmists trivializing physics. For example, why anyone would go from a 0.5% change in energy budget to a 0.5% change in absolute temperature is beyond me. Heating and temperature in the atmosphere are connected by complex and non-linear factors, which is one of the reasons we need to do modelling in the first place. Even in the simplest case of a black body the non-linear Stephan-Bolzmann law applies, not Newton's law of cooling (which is linear, but irrelevant to this case.)
So the argument you're making is not even wrong: it simply doesn't speak to the question of what the plausible effect of climate change on the Earth in general and humanity in particular will be.
This kind of argument just feeds the Denialist trolls who are doing so much damage to this discourse, because they will pick up on your errors and cry "hoax!" and other such nonsense rather than "honest, innocent and naive mistake", which in fairness what I think your error most likely is.
Finally, as I said above, I've had this kind of discussion before and it's never ended well, so I'm going to stop here and let you have the last word. Enjoy!