the comments section is a interesting read but that is of course not a scientists work... but of those engaged in the discussions... so you need also to take the answer of the specialists into consideration...

While I completely agree with what you say about change to renewable energies (the nuclear option is NOT an option at all) I do believe that a carbon tax would enforce change to renewable energies. As long as we live in a market oriented system we need prices as information and steering point. Having NO price at all on carbon leeds you to the current situation.
I would be happy if you just would agree with me about the following points:
1.) There is something called greenhouse effect induced by greenhouse gases like co2, methane, water vapor, etc.. and change of radiation wave length when the sun radiation is reflected / absorbed and converted, that keeps the earth warmer than the moon
2.) This effect will be greater if you add more of those greenhouse gases to the atmosphere
3.) Man adds those greenhouse gases to the atmosphere by burning fossile fuels, releasing methane gas ( fracking, meat industry, fertilizer, etc.), land use change

Can we agree on that?
Details is a problem, yes. And I am also not happy that climate scientists are not further in their models and science. So that gives us uncertainty about the exact degree.. but I would say lets rather be too pessimistic instead of erring on the other side and kill our huge eco spacecraft.
And you have to know... everything IPCC and others publish is a base case... averaged and leveled by summing up the work of many single studies... so there is anyway the risk that we are on a much worse path already...