I have a pretty good understanding of economics and one of the things I quite well understand is that setting up a system where rich countries give more money to poor countries, which would be the big effect of cap and trade, isn't going to help reduce emissions. If anything, it'll raise them since the poor countries will be able to develop their industry and then start using more fossil fuels themselves. You would likely find that many who thought the agreement was good when they were getting money would decide to withdraw later when it suited them.
If cleaner energy is the desired result and economics are the method you wish to use, then subsidies for R&D are the way to go. Taxes on coal to support nuclear, taxes on fossil fuels to support biofuels, that kind of thing. You pour money in to developing better biofuel technology or the like, and money in to getting the process up to the point where it is cheap, that will do something. Just shuffling money around country to country will accomplish nothing.
In terms of climate models ok, if you don't like that assertion then which models do you like, and why are those ones correct? What you have to realize is that there are a lot of climate models out there and their predictions are not consistent. They do not agree on how much warming, how fast, and what effect changes will have. So, if there's a correct one, then let's hear it, and evidence as to why that one is correct. If not, well that was relating back to my original point.
You seem to think that this is an argument claiming against climate change. It's not, I try to not interject my personal opinion at all in to these things. Rather this is talking about one of the problems relating taking any wide scale action. The actions that largely seem to be proposed will not do much to actually deal with the issue and, if we are indeed past a tipping point, be worse than useless (since they'd take up resources that should be spent in other ways).
I think a big problem is that people confuse and oversimplify the climate change argument. They think "There is a consensus, the science is settled, thus there is only one course of action we can take!" Nope, rather you can break it down in to four rough levels:
1) The fact of global warming, that the average surface temperature is rising outside of known cycles. This is an observation, a measurement. While it is a complex one, it is not really arguable unless you can find a flaw in the measurements or calculations.
2) The theory of global warming, in particular that the prime or exclusive cause of the warming is an increase in atmospheric CO2 (which is quite easy to measure) cause by human emissions. It provides an explanation for the causality of the observations we've made. As with all theories, you can debate this if you can find evidence that it is incomplete, or contradictory evidence or the like. Also that is a fairly general overview, there are researchers working on much more specific, predictive, versions that would explain more precisely the change in temperature with a given change in atmospheric CO2.
3) The assertion or judgement that this is a net bad thing for humanity. This is based on other theories and models as to what will happen if the temperature increase continues. You can then evaluate those and decide if it is a good or bad thing overall (everything has costs and benefits). For that matter two people could agree on the outcome, but disagree on the judgement of if it is good.
4) The politics or policy of what to do about it. This is the kind of thing there can be a lot of disagreement on, even if you agree on all other points. There's no "right" here. It is all about what seems to be the most beneficial to spend resources on.
The problem is that people seem to do sufficient reading to be convinced that #1 is true, or that #1 and #2 are true, and then decide that means you have to go all the way to the end, and that whatever their given source advocates for #4 is the One True Way(tm) and you are anti-science if you don't buy in.
That isn't how it works.