"who exactly are the "we"
We are the people who stand to benefit and loose value by getting energy through burning stuff.

Your understanding is wrong ... again. Repeatedly you have been shown links to studies that refute your conclusions as rubbish but you continue to believe the false narrative propaganda propagated by the media and statist politicians. If you want to be taken seriously stop repeating lies.

Show us some scientific evidence to support your theory from a credible source that has not been refuted as irrational rubbish. This is a site where we require evidence for our conclusions- in this case rational scientific evidence. You keep on repeating conclusions that have been proven false. Thoritsu and nickursis have shown you (again) that your data is faulty. You continue to ignore the factual evidence that there is no danger to climate from CO2 generated by humans. If you have any new study to support your views then produce it.

Than you Thoritsu, for the clarification.

We have had this discussion before, and I have presented evidence. You are quite correct that reality will go on without regard for our wishes. However, you are completely wrong about who is wishing and who has a grasp of reality.

If you simply look at the simple model described in the paper (linked below). You can see on p77 the attention to the effect of water vapor. In all present models, the dominant greenhouse gas (direct effect) is water vapor. The effect of water vapor is clear physics. The cause of a change in water vapor is variously assumed.
p84 notes "Suffice to say that clouds are the main source of uncertainty in climate modeling, from the toy system (this papers example) and the GCM (global climate model)."

https://www.whoi.edu/fileserver.do?id...

You can also note the various areas of other uncertainty described, such as vegetation.

CO2 is quite clearly NOT the dominant greenhouse gas. All the experts know it, and avoid educating the common person because it erodes funding and power transfer.

The cognitive dissonance is yours, not mine. You have admitted you don't understand this but accept the positions of experts before. Do not belittle me with statements like wishful thinking, when I do the work to understand, and you simply rely on the word of experts enjoying increased funding from funded.

"I find the notion of denying the reality of the problem to be pure wishful thinking. Science is open to new evidence, and there are breakthrough where we discover happy surprises, like butter being more healthful than margarine. It's wishful thinking to cling to the hope that new evidence will uncover we were wrong and things are exactly as we wished they were. "

This (above). You seem to insist the global warming gang is correct, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I have given you evidence of an overwhelminga amount that NOTHING IS WRONG, it is normal climate change, standard earth variation, and is driven by the sun, primarily.

You, sir, have obviously never been in a lawsuit in our corrupt system, but trust me, you can get hammered and still never pay a dime, and no one can force you too. Businesses are worse. Then to top it all off, all damages received are treated as taxable income, so if you receive 100K in damages, prepare to give 48% to your state and Feds.

Note, this guy does all kinds of experimental stuff with electricity and magnetism, but it will take minds like that to create and produce. That was the key thing with Gault, he created the motor to power the world, which was remarkably similar to this concept.

No doubt, the beauty of it, is it will take an Ayn Rand character mind to make it happen, but they are out there:

https://youtu.be/ENeDkGce5-4

Hmmm... then maybe youneed some re-education, your exposure to propaganda is still sticking...AND it is propaganda:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...


Maybe this guy will be able to get through to you with data and facts:

https://medium.com/@pullnews/what-i-l...

"There is no direct line from CO2 and warming, particularly from a greenhouse effect."
This is contrary to what the evidence shows. It almost sounds like a political thing.
" the effect Al Gore described"
Oh... you are talking about politics.

This is all wishful thinking. Reality goes on without regard for our wishes.

"You cannot get anyone to pay for anything in the current corrupt legal system they have built."
Our legal system is better than most in human history. There are still many improvements to make. We're still far from perfection.

This crap people make up is wishful thinking. We will find ways to control carbon, and other molecules whose bonds take and release energy, in profitable ways. I'll buy millions. I have no doubt it will happen.

"why do you insist on doing that?"
What's the antecedent of "that"? Is it wishful thinking about global warming? If reality cared about my wishes, human activities wouldn't be costly. This would not only save money but also remove one bogus way to promote socialism.

Sounds pretty accurate. I posted a video from the Climate Change Conference that directly ties into this, and is exactly what is being discussed. They control the public narrative, and offer no rational facts and data to support their position, so they just skipped that step, and moved to a fiction called "consensus science" and the guy uses a casual study done that says UFO sightings are directly related to the rise of temperature in the oceans, by their logic, to reduce the temp of oceans, we now have to eliminate UFOs. Which may be cheaper in the long run than Cap and Trade and other ponzi schemes the liberals are trying to impose on us.

A metaphor is not an answer, it is a means of avoiding the real answer. I'm guessing that your real answers to questions 2 and 3 are "the government", to questions 4, 8 and 9 are "the taxpayers", and to question 5 is "coerced". Correct me if I'm wrong.

"We", when used in terms encompassing a mythical group, such a the socialists like to do, always seems to encompass the genius ruling elite, who so wisely can see what we peasants cannot, and impose the draconian fixes necessary, by force or theft, or corruption, as needed. All for the cause. For the People!

Excellent logic.

Again, a "we should" answer that is not really helpful. Do "we" have a duty to "work through" this question? If "we" don't want to, and don't consider it to be a serious issue, should "we" be forced to? Should "we" give the government carte blanche to enforce whatever "stronger interventions" it deems appropriate?

In an Objectivist context the analogy doesn't hold. The lake would either be privately owned or would be equivalent to a homeowners association "common area" owned jointly by the surrounding land owners. Either way, rules for use of the lake would be set by the individual or joint owners. No "pretending" necessary.

So the question remains, who exactly are the "we" that "need to find more powerful tools to deal with climate change and use them very wisely”?

Old Ugly Carl has posted some links to Ssuspicious Observers that indicate the changes in the sun, and cosmic rays able to penetrate due to the reduced and altered magnetosphere, could be a cuase, causing cloud nucleation, that has altered established patterns. This has the effect of causing new dry areas, hotter areas, and colder ones. Ask the people in the Midwest how cold it is. Diamond at Oppenheimer Ranch also goes into some very detailed explanations of how this works, and continually throws out data that is usually not in MSM, proving we are getting colder, not warmer.

Lucky, your opinion is probably closer to the reality, than some of the others here, if only because you are fitting the facts to a proposed motive. Since we have seen numerous other stories, lies, made up requirements, and all to steal money from the taxpayers and citizens, this just fits the mold. Keeping in mind, all the glorious "save the world" efforts seem to be attached to new and novel ways to gouge us, and NEVER seem to provide the details of just how much they would steal, and what it would go for, except "to stop climate change". Therefore, you have a good chance of being correct.

A frequent commentator (again) asserts that this matter is outside my area.
Rather than withholding judgment, more comments are made proving the assertion.

My opinion: Global warming alarmism is a political movement supported by fraudulent data.

Facts:
-No experimental evidence exists that CO2 in the atmosphere causes increases in surface temperature.
-The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is (primarily) due to the take up and emission from oceans - see Henry's Law which defines CO2 solubility in water.

There being no problem, action taken as a supposed solution can only be harmful.

No, this is incorrect. There is no direct line from CO2 and warming, particularly from a greenhouse effect. It is possible to calculate the effect of all atmospheric constituents on the heat absorbed/retransmitted and thus the steady-state temperature of the planet from these effects. CO2 is wholly incapable of having the effect Al Gore described. This is quite clearly NOT the problem.

It is possible that CO2 causes something else, and the something else (water vapor, cloud cover, etc) is the cause, but it is well know (among climate experts) that the direct effect of CO2 is NOT the issue.

Isn’t it interesting that this isn’t well publicized? It is possible to find information on this, but it is so suppresssed it should be scary to anyone wondering if there is an alterior motive. Of course their is, “power”.

Well, they would have a hard time with black helicopters only, can't fake contrails. They haven't any black planes I have heard of, so they would need to use other countries and they have stirred up so much hate with their politics, ...nope, not happening...