I liked Phil Hoskins' link to posting courtesy.
I also read your links to Maskin and those economic theories. They claim to be applicable to climate policy, but do not show how.
You claim to have read most of the links I gave, but you refute their findings and facts. Mostly because of circular arguments, I believe.
We most certainly make different interpretations of what we read there.
You place the burden of proof on the the realists who claim nature is OK until otherwise proven.
As I see it, those claiming CO2 is causing Global Warming that has to be adressed by lots of taxpayers money, have the burden of proof.
In my book they have to prove that:
a) CO2 causes harm to climate
b) we can counteract that harm by spending tons of money in Vegas (betting a lot of money with the hope chance will work in our favor.
c) restrict peoples freedom of choice
before I will agree with their claims. So far they have not proved anything. It's all theories and models, and they all fall sort of the mark.
I would feel dishonest if accepted unsubstantiated claims as truth or basis for policy decisions.
On the question of free markets not being able to distribute wealth. America and western Europe is the proof. Wealth is not evenly distributed, but not made unavailable by the authorities.
In the Soviet system distribution was solved by government regulated inadequate production, waiting in line, hoping there was bread to to buy at the counter and black market.
I prefer the free market system
Sorry for the editing, had to straighten out my reasoning.