Those are all mere suppositions that assume evidence which needs to actually be furnished for a proper debate. But aside from that:
1) is wishful thinking that may end up coming true, but is naturally not currently a position supported by science. I don't think this can be discussed much in a scientific context beyond basic stuff like calculating the magnitude of carbon sequestration needed, what such efforts would cost with current technology, and how many orders of magnitude cheaper future technology would have to be to provide a viable solution for the problem as it will exist by the time such technology is invented.
2) boils down to a question of the precision of climate forecasts, and there's certainly room for reasonable debate when framed that way. But given how many of the historical instances of weather/climate-related migration and adaptation came with immense humanitarian costs, you have to be really sure that global warming will be sufficiently slow-moving to not actually be catastrophic. I suspect the bulk of the evidence is against the proposition that global warming will be too slow to cause large-scale famine, or that rising sea levels will be too slow to cause major disruption to coastal cities. At the very least, it seems unjustified to be confident that climate change effects will never approach the scale of what something like a volcanic winter causes.
3) simply ignores the existence of political and corporate resources that are eager for climate change to be disproven. Opponents of climate change are both directly involved in the search for evidence against climate change, and indirectly pressure mainstream researchers to publish only their strongest, most defensible results. So it's quite hard to imagine how the mechanism of bias you point out could be strong enough to produce the net effect of a scientific consensus that greatly exaggerates the magnitude of climate change. This is a reasonable question to investigate, but the question itself does not provide any grounds for rejecting the available evidence for climate change. (This mechanism was able to preserve the wrong scientific consensus regarding the charge of the electron for only about three decades before it was overcome by new results.)
Obviously, none of this discussion is a good fit for Twitter.