I agree with essentially everything Dr. Pindyck has to say in this paper. However, I think he ends the paper too soon.
He concludes by discussing the "insurance value" of taking action against global warming in the context of uncertainty, basically adding some analysis to the precautionary principle. What he did not discuss is that there are several potentially existential threats and additional, broad social needs, all of which have insurance value. The question, which Bjorn Lomborg addresses, is, how do you allocate scare capital among these needs, given significant demand, including from global warming?