Taking only what is referenced by the IPCC, I do not think the even the soft-side of probable outcomes are minor. Neither do any of the people in the scientific community I've spoken to. Neither does the IPCC itself.
The primary consequences of climate change, upon humans, will indeed be social and economic. No one who can even pretend to know what they are talking about would claim otherwise.
Trying to separate the societal and economic challenges that climate change will create or exacerbate from the underlying climatological changes is like trying to separate cause and effect. When someone gives a figure as to the cost in lives of climate change, they most certainly are not saying that the bulk of those people are going to drown in rising seas or torrential rains, or succumb to hypothermia or heat stroke. They are talking about the resulting spikes in discontent, erosion of social systems, poverty (including disease and hunger), and violence.
The condolence of "small relative to other drivers" doesn't mean much. In most of 1940s Europe, violence was a small contribution to the death rate...relative to other drivers. It is a worthwhile comment on perspective, but the 2014 report may well have undersold the threat...not that it matter much if their recommendations aren't going to be met regardless.
He's also been calling climate change a hoax and suggesting that the scientific community has been manipulated into misleading people...that's not at all the same thing as politicians and media misleading people, or people misleading themselves...which are all givens.
This was never a thing. Global cooling a few articles in mainstream magazines that drew attention to a very fringe opinion at the time, that was never reflective of anything that could have been mistaken for scientific consensus.
At the peak of the media attention on "global cooling" or anything of the sort, consensus had long been, and would continue to lean heavily toward, identifying a warming trend. Even the author of the paper that infamous 1975 Newsweek article (which was largely responsible for popularizing the idea) didn't claim there was a global cooling trend...he just cited a hypothetical outcome based on what aerosols and particulates were capable of doing.
When talking about the reality of the issue, or whether scientists have been manipulated, this is all that matters.