A revenue neutral pollution tax can be used to compensate the losers, other than the fossil fuel industry, who are enjoying huge negative externalities right now. No wonder Koch and Koch are spending so much money shaping political perceptions on the issue.
. Climate "science" on the other hand does exactly what you describe here. It looks at past data and attempts to fit it to a hypothesis. That's not science at all.
You are talking about one small vein of climate science -- and creating and testing models is actually science. It's part of "signal processing". I know you will get distracted by that last comment. So again, and speaking very, very, slowly. Modeling is a tiny part of climate science, and the AGW hypothesis does not depend on it in the slightest. See here and here.
What matters is that you are right, and you are going to prove it, no matter what.
Now it is not true that the above pricing estimates are purely subsidy free. Coal, oil and natural gas are still given huge subsidies in the calculations: private profits, socialized losses. You see, coal/oil/gas does not pay for the significant health burdens, or the trillions in wars. And that is leaving aside using the atmosphere as a free waste tip.
If your main concern about climate change action is "ruining the economy", then pull your head out of partisan news sources, and go look at the actual figures that businesses and governments use to make decisions. Most economists believe that climate action costs are negligible, but that not doing anything will cost a lot -- starting with all the beachfront property on the East coast, which will have moved in land within 100 years.