Always find it fascinating how someone can read a 3,000-word, heavily referenced article and, instead of engaging with the evidence, dismiss it out of hand.
If it isn’t up for debate, you’d imagine there’d be a long history of established evidence easily available online. Probably a range of randomized controlled trials demonstrating precisely the opposite of the ones that actually exist. Since there aren’t — I checked, because I tried to be as comprehensive as possible — it’s truly amazing that you’re happy to claim this is all settled science.
I’d imagine you think little of those proclaiming global warming a hoax and therefore not an economic concern without reading anything on the topic — perhaps a good idea to consider the evidence before calling for retractions.