That's impossible to answer. Since you already know that there will be economic damage (but can't provide any historical examples) I expect you'll be able to tell us what the penalty will be for exceeding the limits, who will pay it, how it will be collected and how individual governments will pursue this. Since you're able to predict multinational policy years in advance, please let us know what the DOW will be in six months.
There are no calculations involved in the GHCN data, you can check each data point on line against individual stations if you were so inclined. Is that why you're not actively looking at the temperature data, and stating that it involves some unknown calculations which you don't specify? Wow. Is that correct -- in the last 5000 years there were only three periods where it was warmer than today? And since we know that this decade is warmer than last decade, and the temperatures have been steadily increasing if what you wrote is true (and there's no reason to assume that it is) that portends a very interesting future. You understand that what you wrote wouldn't pass for logic. Just because there's anthropogenic warming doesn't mean there isn't also natural warming. Natural warming/cooling brought about by sharp changes in the environment are termed "climate forcings."
So please demonstrate that natural climate forcings are always benign and that man can control those as well? I'll be waiting on your data.
I understand that in liberal world that sounds meaningful and important, but after Gore and Obama's Nobel peace prizes. Well...it doesn't mean jack shit to the rest of us.
Actually I agree with you that they wouldn't always be benign. And in fact that's why it's important to avoid compounding these problems with man-made emissions.
"Companies that need to increase their emission allowance must buy credits from those who pollute less. The transfer of allowances is referred to as a trade." I suppose it would work similarly to the existing markets in nitrogen oxides. Trading is a very efficient method of dealing with a limited resource.
I don't think any research award, prize in economics, or internationally respected prize in science, mathematics or economics would mean "jack shit to the rest of you."
1) co2 is not a limited resource. 1b) No economic gain is produced through trading. It's a negative sum game. Wall street banks love negative sum games. Energy companies who are fellating the right senators love the idea too. 2) Thanks for admitting loading another burden on economic growth. 2a) If you claim it doesn't place a burden. Please explain how it will reduce carbon emissions.