I'd like to see you try to demonstrate that ignoring the problems of global warming would be better than doing something about it.
First of all, ignoring the problems of global warming is doing something about it. It is adapting to climate change.
Second, there has been consistent bias which exaggerate the costs of global warming, while downplaying the costs of mitigation strategies and roundly ignoring the current improvements in human welfare and capability.
For example, what advocate of renewable energy was predicting that Germany and Denmark's energy policies would result in a doubling of electricity prices for most? It's supposedly a modest reduction in CO2 emissions (since some of the gain is offset by increased burning of coal, locally and in other countries), with an unpredicted high cost.
There are similar problems with renewable subsidies in Spain which have been cut back in recent years due to their high costs and unintended consequences.
Similarly, there has been a lot of dishonest attribution of other problems to climate change. For example, a few years back the Syrian civil war was attributed to climate change while ignoring the single relevant factor, the enormous mismanagement of agriculture in Syria which would have resulted in the current disaster no matter what the climate was doing.
Then there was the classic story about how ocean acidification was killing off oyster spat (the young) while ignoring that they were probably describing a phenomenon that IMHO has been going on for millions of years on that coast.
The exaggeration of global warming's harm is another case. It is routinely ignored that the predictions are for sea level rise over centuries not decades. It's a lot less credible claim to be worried about moving say, two billion people to higher ground, when it is known that the two billion people in question will have moved, naturally, numerous times in that period anyway.
And the geopolitics are ridiculously exaggerated. Most boundaries of the world haven't been stable for a century, but it's assumed that they will be for the next century. For a commonly used example, it's just silly to assume that Bangladesh can never, with a century or more lead time, make a deal with India to protect its citizens from the effects of a rising sea level.. Diplomacy can be very slow, but it's not that slow.
Here, I think we have a hard case to make that people who live on the coasts would even notice the gradual sea level rise!
Finally, here there is the ignorance of the growing wealth of the entire world. We have numerous examples of this. Most of the world is better off than the developed world was in 1900. Therefore, it's reasonable to expect that most of the world is on track to be better off than the developed world was in 2000 (especially if they should choose to forgo the two world wars). That means that the costs of adapting to unmitigated climate change is carried by remarkably wealthy societies.
Finally, there is the obvious observation that there are far bigger problems than climate change out there. I think it would be the peak of hubris to impose terribly costly strategies to slightly mitigate climate change while making the real problems much worse! Curbing CO2 emissions don't help with poverty, overpopulation, corruption, destruction of farmland and habitat, etc. Some of these problems are even made worse.
And it's worth noting that if you solve the worst problems, then global warming is easy to adapt to, while if you were to fix global warming without fixing those other problems, you'll be in the midst of global disaster. When it comes to triage of global problems, climate change just shouldn't make the cut. It is not something we should be throwing vast resources at.
And that leads to the case for non-action: namely, the harm of climate change is just not that bad, the costs of mitigation are far greater than advertised, and if we do nothing, we actually build the most adaptable and wealthy societies for dealing with climate change and the far larger problems that we face.