You are fundamentally misunderstanding what science is saying about climate. First, nearly every knowledge person agrees that climate is changing and has always been, at least for 4 billion years on this planet. We are not denying climate change and we are certainly not denying science. Actually our argument is based on the empirical scientific observation that climate has changed without humanity having much of a hand in it. Ten thousand years ago we were in an Ice Age and glaciers covered the sites where Boston and New York now stand. Sea level was much lower. You could walk Siberia to Alaska. Then climate changed and got warmer. Glaciers melted and sea level rose, all before a single lump of coal was burned. Did humanity go extinct? No it adapted and promptly took a huge leap forward as civilizations began.
Your argument is based on the unscientific doctrine of climate stability. When you say “If we move to prevent climate change now,..” you are assuming climate would not change but for human activity. You are also assuming humanity actually has the capability to take action that would prevent climate change. Most climatologists would deny that. Science would say you have vastly overstated our capability to control the climate.
The right strategy is not to destroy our current economy and wreak pain on millions alive today, but to adapt efficiently and with the minimal disruption to whatever climate change does occur. We can build on higher ground, extend waterborne living (Venice), reclaim wetlands, modify crop strains, and so on. Over 50 -100 years we can adjust to new conditions.
This is not a case of Pascals wager based on what Science is saying as much as an attempt to impute scientific support for courses of action that are inherently outside the realm of science. Science does not say the Paris climate accords are a necessary or even sensible course of action.