Jim, I do not agree with you that uncertainty regarding future warming strengthens the case for cap-and-trade or other mitigation programs. As the Goklany paper I linked to earlier demonstrates, even if the worse comes to pass, we’re still better off with a policy of adaption rather than mitigation. This is a variation of the precautionary principle and I don’t think that it holds up very well to serious analysis.
You may be right that we would be better advised to accept the IPCC’s narratives about the science and likely future harms but to resist aggressive mitigation by marshalling economic arguments. Unfortunately, many people who accept the lurid scientific narratives in the press about future warming are not in any mood to have a conversation about costs and benefits.