You have cited no research at all.
Every one of my links is well-sourced with numerous references to peer-reviewed research to support the argument that they (and I) are making. I'm not the one making completely unsupported assertions here.
the IPCC represents opinion, not fact
In your own opinion. In everyone else's, the IPCC's summaries and countless references to peer-reviewed research are a heck of a lot more reliable than some random web comment.
you are pointing to the 2007 report
Your point is? Would you like me to cite more cost-benefit research? There's plenty out there. Or perhaps you'd care to present actual evidence for a change?
That's an assumption you're making without any justification.
Well, only justified by the historical track record of successful government interventions in other emissions issues, as I stated further down. Where's the justification for your own assumptions?
you haven't cited any research
No, you've just dismissed and ignored it all.
putting solar cells on the roof and buying electricity from renewable sources
Good for you. Leaving aside all the people in rental properties, apartment buildings, shaded areas, multistory shopping malls, industrial factories, developing nations etc who can't meet their needs with solar cells, how many of them have any alternate options of renewable grid sources? What makes you so confident they will get an alternate option in any reasonable time-frame, if fossil-fuel companies are allowed to continue offloading their biggest costs?
The existence of externalities a century from now
Well, those and the hundreds of billions annually in health costs that I already mentioned.
even for RCP8.5, sea level rise by 2100 will likely stay below 3 ft, yet you conjure up disaster scenarios.
And you think 3 feet isn't a problem? The research I didn't conjure is concerned with rises beyond 2100 - if their model is valid, there could be far more drastic sea level rise over the next 500 years than was anticipated, to the point that almost every coastal city on the globe will be heavily flooded. I'd like to see that possible scenario avoided, and I don't share your faith that it'll automatically happen on its own.
making any other arguments irrelevant
And here you've lost me. Leaving aside the various other studies that disagree with you, your apparent insistence that all other human, social, and health costs, risks & uncertainties, etc are completely valueless in your cost-benefit analysis makes any further discussion fairly pointless. If discounted direct costs are your only metric for action then I don't see that we can agree on anything.
I'll leave you with this: most current power stations will EOL sometime in the next 30 years anyway, and will need to be replaced. So long as they are required to be replaced with low- or zero-carbon alternatives, be they wind, solar, nuclear, or whatever, then we will have eliminated a lot of our CO2 emissions at minimal additional cost, especially considering that renewables have low ongoing costs. Similarly, most vehicles will be up for replacement in much the same time frame, and mandating most replacements to low- or zero-carbon (EV, hydrogen, biodiesel, etc) would also have a relatively low impact. When you factor in the secondary benefits such as eliminating the huge health and pollution costs from coal and ICE emissions, it's hard to argue that we won't be better off, financially and socially. Add further benefits such as net-positive efficiency gains and reduced climate damage, and to me it looks like the complete opposite of "wrecking the economy".