RESPONDENTS YOU ARE ASKING PASCAL FOR REFERENCES TO PROVE A NEGATIVE.

Your detractors would like you to prove a negative. To provide a scientific reference that proves there does not exist any reference showing great cost. NOTE: I have skimmed many of their references. No surprise they DO show scientific evidence of effect, and they DO NOT quantify the costs of these effects. (because we don't them very well)

Perhaps you should include the reference below in your article?

Below is perhaps this is the best reference you might provide. It is a summary from a recent IPCC report (the world leading organization whose mission is to quantify these costs). I skimmed it, and the strongest claim I could find is this over arching conclusion. Essentially it says if we wait, cleanup will be harder later. But it still does not quantify the consequences of not doing the cleanup. From the report:

Available evidence on projected climate risks indicates that opportunities for adaptation to many climate risks will likely become constrained and have reduced effectiveness should 1.5°C global warming be exceeded and that, for many locations on Earth, capacity for adaptation is already significantly limited. The maintenance and recovery of natural and human systems will require the achievement of mitigation targets.

https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg2/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGII_FinalDraft_TechnicalSummary.pdf

Pascal, the only caution I would add, is that while we don't KNOW the costs of inaction outweigh the costs of rapid and dramatic reduction in fossil fuel usage, we also do KNOW they are not. There are some plausible existential threats (e.g. tipping points, loss of bio-diversity, etc.) that could be existential in nature. We cannot PROVE they will happen, but we also cannot PROVE they will not. And they do have a degree of plausibility behind them. So one might argue, we need to suffer the trillions of dollars in economic damage from climate reduction just to play it safe. This stance IS justified, by the science... it is just not what the media tells us.

NOTE TO ANY WHO WANT TO REPLY HERE. If you are going cite some science paper and claim it DOES quantify costs, please cut and paste the relevant claim directly in your response, just as I did above. You will know exactly where the claim is, since you are claiming the paper does in fact have such a claim. (I have looked as many dozens of papers, and have failed to find these claims)