Hey, they started started it, with the term "denialists".
Er, 'denialist' is in contrast to 'skeptic'. They're different things. What is a 'warmist', and what do we contrast it with?
More violent storms. More floods. The growth of deserts. The destruction of farmland. Ruined fresh water supplies. Dislocations of millions of people in low lying areas. The destruction of more property than all the earthquakes of the past century. Famine. Starvation.
Nit pick
More violent storms -> increase in number of severe storms. AGW will increase the likelihood of extreme weather events, but might not increase total number of storms. In this one, potato, po tah to.
More floods: yes, due to less winter-trapping and due to harder precipitation events.
Growth of deserts -> maybe not. It's better described as a shifting of deserts. Some will grow. Some will shrink. Importantly, they'll move.
Destruction of farmland is a secondary effect to flooding (coupled with bad land management that has nothing to do with AGW) and changing precipitation patterns. As you and I have discussed, one degree (C) of warming seems to cause a 5% reduction of farming output
due to the warming. We've coming technologies to increase farming output, so warming might only cause a drain on output, not an outright reduction
Ruined water -> yes, but probably only along coasts, due to salt-water seep. Aquifers might not replenish as quickly (the math on that has not been done enough times) if precipitation intensity increases faster than total precipitation increases. I frequently ask people to be cognizant of their local aquifer, it vastly changes your understanding of local concerns.
Displacement of people will be gradual, so it's not a 'crisis'. It will just be an endemic cause of poverty and of capital destruction. It won't be noticed as an event, but as a narrative. In fact, those people are likely to increase in wealth as economies evolve, so we'll be able to look back and call them 'richer'. The drain on their wealth increases will be mostly invisible (like many externalities are).
Some of the problems can actually be ignored. For example, there's concern about malaria spreading. This is true, but the cost and rapidity of dealing with malaria is so efficient that geological issues are snails compared to it.
Other issues, like threats to coral reefs, are more serious. Their degradation will either directly cause economic drain OR will cost a lot of money to offset (repair). The temperature spike of 1998 killed 1/6th of the world's coral reefs (and devastated aquatic biodiversity in those areas). Increasing oceanic acidity coupled with increasing the likelihood of us causing a higher temperature spike, could have very serious consequences