There is a lot material to read at those sites, and perhaps I will find the time to read some of it.

For the moment I'll select one quote from first link:
"Sea level is projected to rise between the present (1980–
1999) and the end of this century (2090–2099) under the SRES
B1 scenario by 0.18 to 0.38 m, B2 by 0.20 to 0.43 m, A1B by
0.21 to 0.48 m, A1T by 0.20 to 0.45 m, A2 by 0.23 to 0.51 m,
and A1FI by 0.26 to 0.59 m."

So 1 1/2 foot rise in sea level is highest estimate and the lowest estimate is less or equal than we have experienced on average in modern times over a hundred year period.
No one has ever died or even felt slightly ill from sea level rise in the past, nor will any in the next few hundred years.

Another quote:
"Multi-model projections based on SRES scenarios give reductions in pH of between 0.14 and 0.35 units in the 21st century, adding to the present decrease of 0.1 units from pre-industrial times. Southern Ocean surface waters are projected to exhibit undersaturation with regard to calcium carbonate for CO2 concentrations higher than 600 ppm, a level exceeded during the second half of the century in most of the SRES scenarios."

One could argue whether this is accurate, but assuming it is accurate this will pose no risk to human or other life.

Another quote:
"It is very likely that heat waves will be more intense, more
frequent and longer lasting in a future warmer climate. Cold
episodes are projected to decrease significantly in a future warmer climate."

Again assuming this is true, cold weather events generally kill more people than hot weather events. So generally speaking this should net a saving in life- if true.

Weather and changing climate has in the past killed many people. In the modern world because technology [particularly true in regards to space technology] far fewer deaths have occurred from weather events or changing climate.

Further if we are to believe these projections, it indicates that the possibility of entering into long and severe cooling period is unlikely in the near future, and one could assume from their reasoning that increasing global CO2 levels would prevent this from happening or at least mitigate it.
If there was a choice between a 2 C increase in global temperature or 2 C decrease in global temperatures, it's fairly obvious that decrease in temperature would be far more dangerous and kill many times more people and life than the warming.

In addition if we worried about heat waves killing humans, [or you simply wish to conserve energy] most human live in urban areas. And we currently living urban areas in which the average temperature has been raise due to Urban Heat Island affect on average around 2 or 3 times more than any projected increase in global temperature in next hundred or even thousand years. Doing something to reduce the UHI affect is something any city could do with proper use of science and city planning. Of course not all cities would have any desire or need to do this, but I think that it would wise for federal dollars to be spend in a modest fashion to address this issue.

To review. It's nothing new that weather and climate can seriously affect humans- that's been true since beginning of the existence of human. In modern countries far fewer people die from weather related affects compared to poorer less advanced nations.
Also, the biggest killer in the world of humans is malaria- it was one of biggest killer in America when we suffered from it. We know how to rid this world of Malaria, because we have already done it in various places in the world. The ban of DDT has resulted in about million deaths per year- mostly children. And hundreds of time this number suffer extreme pain and disability due to malaria [and don't die].
If in America if had the scale of problem some of people the world has with malaria we would within weeks to months we would get rid of this threat. The US public after seeing this horror, would kick the DDT ban out the window in a nanosecond.