First, what if there's not time to eliminate human misery before addressing global warming? I've most recently seen that one more degree of heating in the arctic will be too much, and with the massive inertia in Earth systems that doesn't give us much time to get cracking.
You suggest that addressing GW now would pull resources from other humanitarian projects. However, this could instead be the answer to the currently unstoppable military-industrial complex. I don't see how it could be accomplished, but imagine how quickly GW could be solved if all the power now turned to weapons and destruction could be turned to saving the planet for humans (and most other living things). Without taking anyone from current humanitarian projects.
Lomborg is sane
"Predictably, Lomborg called on the APAC 6 to ignore Kyoto because it's too expensive -- without any recognition of all the wealth and jobs a global transition to clean energy would create."
Ever hear of the "broken window" fallacy? Or read Bastiat's essay "What is Seen and What is Not Seen"?
I'll go ahead and answer for you: no, you haven't.
It's not obvious to me, or to anyone with a basic understanding of economics, that a global transition to clean energy would create wealth and jobs at all. What you see in your mind, for example, is engineering jobs created to seek sources of clean energy. What you do fail to see is that these are resources that are currently applied to other projects -- for example, seeking sources of clean water for millions that lack it.
It is more than a little dishonest to describe Lomborg's argument as "leave global warming to our kids because it's too expensive for us". Rather, it is "Leave global warming to our kids because it's too expensive for us; instead, let's put our efforts toward eliminating human misery the best we can. Then our wealthier, healthier, better-educated, better-equipped children can deal with global warming."
But I suppose it's easier to dismiss him as a stooge.