hetfield
i sincerely appreciate your attempt.
however,
1. Re: the IPCC fourth assessment which you state as
unequivocal.
Bishop Hill has unearthed
a jaw-dropping critique of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report.
There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department. The points being made are made arbitrarily with legal sounding caveats without having established any foundation or basis in fact. The Executive Summary seems to be a political statement that is only designed to annoy greenhouse skeptics. Wasn't the IPCC Assessment Report intended to be a scientific document that would merit solid backing from the climate science community – instead of forcing many climate scientists into having to agree with greenhouse skeptic criticisms that this is indeed a report with a clear and obvious political agenda. Attribution can not happen until understanding has been clearly demonstrated. Once the facts of climate change have been established and understood, attribution will become self-evident to all.
* my bold and underline
and
2. You cite a wiki statement that says
'very likely'. very likely is not unequivocal, nor is emprical.
All you have done is quote Wikipedia.
AGW is a theory. It is not proven as fact, there is no unmolested data to support that theory. it is simply that,
a theory.
There is NO data produced that demonstrates that CO2 is a driver of climate change, it is a theory and there is NO uolested data to support that theory.
Again, the EU-ETS is paper trading based on a theory that there is no data to support. You want to see what EU wide theories result in, against professional advice ? Look at the Eurozone situation and the EUrozone debt, that was a result of trading paper based on theory.
So, what data is there to support the EU-ETS in any basis ?