Lying, the left and global boiling

We are below China, and many other countries in per capita emissions yet we are still expected to do more. We have done our bit to our eternal cost based on some pretty dodgy science and some base assumptions and wobbly stats and models. 

The problem is 'the science' is backed up by propaganda that is both blatant and insidious. The wild fires overall are no greater than any other year especially in North America where the acreage burnt in the thirties was many times greater than this year, the temperatures are no greater anywhere than we have had in the past however local records are broken which is not an unusual event in most years, the cities are experiencing higher temperatures which is not surprising given the greater areas of concrete, glass and brick and the excess heat generated by buildings  as air conditioning works at full blast, the weather charts are colour coded to portray red, deep red and blacks when in the past the same temperatures would have appeared as rather insipid yellows and light orange, the extreme weather events are not increasing by any official measure, the sea levels are not rising at catastrophic rates, floods are not becoming worse. It is all grist to the mill to create a crisis as opposed to raise a concern.
Your analogy presupposes that the use of fuel is wrong, which it is not. You may have a case to indicate the excessive use of fuel is wrong in which case we are angels and if individuals are expected to be restrained in their fuel use that would apply in equal measure to every individual including all the private jets lined up at the G20. Broadly we are being taken for mugs.

And that has been a huge problem, worse governments here and there made it very clear that if researchers wanted their projects funded, it would at the least be a very good idea to make them on lines likely to back their 'oh look we can make our taxes for pet projects look angelic' plans.  It was in effect bribery.
 
Some should be hanging their heads in shame, some might even be guilty of misconduct in public office.
 
But it would be equally as wrong to conclude from those failings that the MMGW theory is false.  The planet is warmer, it is a credible (if unproven) theory and it's folly to just disregard what could be a huge risk for billions of people.

Well that raises the question of what is too rapidly and too harshly? No one should just discount the economic risks of doing do but I'd also say that limiting ourselves in life to only doing what no one minds doing is in most circumstances to act far too slow.

There's no low risk way forward here. And like it or no no way of ignoring that we're running out of politically/economically affordable carbon to burn so a crunch is coming.

You appear to completely miss the single obvious point which is that mankind should be doing their best to 'go green'. That not all countries can go completely green at this point in time is irrelevant, that most, perhaps all countries, are increasingly going green is the right thing to do in terms of looking after the planet and our future health, along with in terms of doing what we can, or what countries feel that they can do to reduce mankind's exacerbation of climate change.

I wonder if they support or oppose the astronomical cost. All for the theoretical "benefit" of being a degree cooler.

One could argue that the cost of the alternative source of energy, presumably coal (plus the damage to health) should be subtracted from your "astronomical cost".