I mean, here’s the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s data clearinghouse. Looks like lots of “numbers” to me. (Edit: that said, my mechanic doesn’t need to put “numbers” in front of me for me to trust that the car will run safely. There’s thousands of cases in your life where you trust experts to handle the details for you. Why is this not one of them, outside of a weird mindset on this issue?)
Problem is, that’s not a simple question. It isn’t even complicated. It’s complex. The IPCC has done what they can to answer the “simple” questions and folks (like yourself!) continue to find ways to doubt them—I don’t know why they’d put work into modeling complex predictions.
Your points about innovation are all well and good. My master’s thesis was on innovation. Trick is, there’s many kinds of innovation, and investing in innovation to respond to climate change is a perfectly viable response. I think you’re setting up a weird dichotomy between “crippling Western economies” and “investing in innovation”—policy plans exist that suggest win-win situations by investing in innovation in order to reimagine these economies for new energy sources. See the options published on Drawdown, for instance.