I will still defer to the collected expertise of climatologists, which, for the moment, still supports the AGW hypothesis. I also expect climatologists to defer to economists when it comes to the question of \”what to do about it\”.
I still think a well-designed carbon tax or cap-and-trade system (the former being preferred to the latter) could result in significant welfare gains if paired with a cut in distortionary taxes (particularly payroll taxes), but I also think the odds of getting a well-designed regulation out of the political system are low.
The question of whether a real-world regulation would create benefits greater than costs isn\’t yet clear to me. I\’m not an advocate of the \”we must do something, this is something, therefore we must do this\” position on global warming.