Actually if we aren’t allowed to dispute his book then he loses here with an “own goal”. From the 2007 version:
“We cannot rule out the potential for catastrophic impacts that might overwhelm the billions and trillions of dollars of impacts and abatement costs. But fears about low-probability outcomes in the distant future – which
are unlikely to be verified or refuted in the near future – should not impede our taking constructive steps to deal with the high-probability dangers that are upon us today. We should start with the clear-and-present dangers, after which we can turn to the unclear-and-distant threats.”
So in his book he directs us to put aside “Abrupt and Catastrophic Climate Change”, and by so doing Lindzen et al hoist him on his own petard. When you do that the cost benefit analysis suggest little to favour action over inaction.