You implied that increase in temperature == arid and dry, which is not the case.
Not for our species necessarily, though. Or for our economies even
Irrelevant considering the topic.
Quick changes ARE negative to life as such
This is not given, and according to ice-core data, earlier changes have also been quite quick, without the negative impact predicted in this discussion.
we're right in the middle of a major extinction event and everything points at one species being the driver of it -- us
Yes, we make species extinct by killing them, destroying their habitat through agricultural expansion etc. What does that have to do with this discussion? Please note, the links between species going extinct and global warming are actually non-existent. There is some research that would imply that at a local level, some animals go extinct from that area, but there is nothing to indicate a general extinction event tied to global warming.
Again, look at previous warming periods, even periods where cold-blooded animals were in the majority (lizards, dinosaurs) and you will find that higher temperatures, more CO2 and more humidity means higher bio diversity. Also look at the current state of the earth. The places receiving the most sun - the equator - is the areas with the highest bio diversity (rain forests). These places are not the driest because the high amount of incoming heat generates high levels of moisture.
Good to see that the religious nuts (that is you) are out in force again. Sorry, but what you say simply doesn't match observed realities. In the past, when CO2 levels have been substantially higher than they are today, and higher than the predictions for AGW too, life thrived on this planet. In fact, in volume and diversity, it did a lot better than it currently is.
Yes, there is no doubt that the predicted warming will cause many issues for human kind, and it will even be traumatic for a good number of species tied to current habitats (but they will adapt quickly), there is no reason to think that the warming will be generally negative to life as such. Quite the opposite. When the earth warms it is far more likely that the earth, as was the case before, becomes a better place for life as such.
To argue otherwise is to argue against observations, and it will take a lot of very, very strong evidence to argue that the next warm period is going to have a significantly different impact on life as such than the previous ones. There simply isn't any evidence for that.
What the hell else do you do?
At this point in time - keep them segregated from society if they are dangerous, otherwise, help them live as normally as possible and accept the fact that some people are just different.
We don't know what's going to happen, we've never been there before
Depending on what you mean by "we" this is inaccurate. If you mean "we" as in "you and I" then you are correct, if you mean "we" as "planet earth and the life on it" you are wrong. For "us" in that definition, 400 isn't uncommon or particularly high.
You should look at that map once again. Find the equator. Look at where the deserts are. See? They are nowhere near the equator. Deserts are not caused by heat, they are caused by dry climates. Hot == wet. Cold == dry. The biggest desert on this planet is called Antarctica.
Actually: Cold == dry == arid, warm == wet == quite nice conditions. Oh, and no, our deserts are not deserts because of the heat, they are deserts because of the humidity level (see weather systems).
If life hasn't adapted to live in the desert in millions of years, how will it adapt now
This may be counter-intuitive to some, but still:
Cold == dry == desertification
Warm == humid == more plant life (both through the humidity and through the increase in CO2
I don't know what part of the world you live in, but it appears to be limited to the inside of the walls of your house. Dark chocolate with sea salt is amazing. Salt with chocolate has been popular all over the world (or the parts that have access to chocolate) for a long time.
Then again, not everybody likes real chocolate either and stick with what they get in the candy store, which has only a theoretical connection to chocolate.
Yea, it isn't a professional grade graphics tool unless you paid an obscene amount of money for it
You and I have very different views on the concept of "obscene", but hey, you could ask your mummy to increase your weekly allowance.
There is no radar technology that can sort out that many targets
Not neeed. No need for ground control.
There is no on board computer system that can manage that many "obstacles"
An iPhone is plenty sufficient.
There is no contingency plan for a area wide power failure taking down all the radar and ground computers.
They are not needed.
You hand wave away massive problems and assume into existence technology that simply does not exist
No, you assume we need to handle air-borne cars the same way we handle commercial jets. We don't.
Like I said, 2D space is way easier to deal with than 250 million aircraft in 3D space over cities
Nobody would ever have to handle any number of vehicles in that range. There is no need for ground control.
Our capabilities at self-flying commercial jets have not reached the perfection level necessary to do without well-trained pilots all together
Mostly for regulatory reasons
Now you have to worry about people coming from all 3 dimensions
No you won't. RTFA. That's for the on-board computer to worry about, while you are finishing breakfast and updating your facebook status.