Scams we live with

I hope there is some middle ground. Our most accurate and non-adjusted temperature data (i.e., satellite) clearly indicates some global average warming since 1950, and during that same period, CO2 has increased from 0.028% to 0.04% of the atmosphere. Right about there, the facts end. We use proxies and models for the rest. So, should we study the trend and try to measure positive and negative effects of the warming, and try to determine if there are more positive effects or negative effects? Yes! Then, if we could conclusively determine that there are more negative effects, and then quantify by dollars and lives how much the negative effects outweigh the positive ones, then we might be able to decide if trading cheap energy (i.e., carbon-based fuels) in for expensive energy (solar, wind, etc) makes sense. Many of the poorest people in the world would not be able to afford expensive energy, and would suffer (and some would die) if forced to survive without it. So we'd also have to measure the positives and negatives of any "carbon tax" BEFORE we implemented it. A real cost-benefit analysis, in other words.