Our record temperatures, or are they?

Ah the 99.9% consensus again. Have you a link to the data that confirms the 99.9%. If it is Cook et al then that research has been discussed and generally rejected as a true indication of any consensus if one looks at the methodology in detail. 
Apparently some 1000 scientists have little faith in the AGW narrative and have signed documents to that effect. Remember no one is saying earth is not warming what is being clearly said is that attributing that warming to man as the primary driver of that change is neither proven or provable in the science research so far and that an emergency does not exist.

That depends what you mean by "Darwinism". To make it simpler, we could take just two fundamental components of evolutionary theory: common descent and natural selection. These two are absolutely proven, without no justification for being skeptical. Amphibians are descended from fish, for example. The probability of this claim turning out to be false is zero. It can't happen, because there's so much direct evidence to support it and that the only way it could be falsified is if the whole of natural science were to be falsified. And that just isn't going to happen. Natural selection is also unassailable because there's no conceivable way it can't be true -- if a mother duck starts out with 15 ducklings and only one survived, it surely isn't random which one survived. Or rather, it isn't random which ones didn't survive -- they weren't all born equal, and any with physical defects aren't going to last very long. That is how natural selection works. 

If you extend it to the whole of neo-Darwinism, including its materialistic context, then there are much bigger question marks. In fact I'd say that theory has conclusively been proven false, not because natural selection or common descent aren't true, but because metaphysical materialism is incoherent. But that's not actually science -- it's bad metaphysics that science is having trouble getting over. See: www.amazon.co.uk/Mind-Cosmos-Materialist-Neo-Darwinian-Conception/dp/0199919755



I know it is absolutely a proven theory. I actually associate with climate scientists, in real life. None of them agree with you. You do realise that, right? You are saying the entire scientific community is wrong about something scientific, but your non-scientific sources (or your own thinking, I don't know) has got the science right.



That is possibly the most important question that the whole world should be talking about, especially people who want to maximise their chances of survival, and those of their families, communities and nations. Natural selection will apply, but it is likely to apply as much at the group level as it does at the individual level. It's no use if you yourself make wise decisions, but you're living in a community or nation which makes bad ones. And for many people they have no chance anyway, because their nation is in a very poor location. The UK is one of the best places we could be -- we're an island (so have defensible borders) and we are far enough north to remain habitable even after 4 degrees of rise. Our biggest problem as a nation, from this POV, is overpopulation. We can't rely on global markets, and we can't feed ourselves. That is why we need to be asking these questions now -- letting more immigrants in in a futile, counter-productive search for economic growth is a terrible idea from this POV. What we actually need to do is try to get net immigration down to zero and become as self-sufficient as possible in critical things such as food and energy.

I am not sure there is much point in predicting numbers who will survive, but I have been asked that question hundreds of times over the years and discussed it as many. I'd say the best case scenario would see 2 to 3 billion still alive when the dying stops, but that really is being optimistic. Far more likely we are talking fewer than one billion, and in the worst case scenario is down in the tens of millions, scraping out an existence on both polar coastlines. See my avatar. That's Antarctica.

I don't need one, just like I don't need a link to the data that confirms 100% of scientists agree that that Earth revolves around the sun. 

If you are going to claim that there are scientists who don't think climate change is happening, or don't think it is being caused by humans, then it is you who needs to provide the source. And you can't, because there isn't one. No genuine scientists agree with you, just a tiny number of people who were bought off by big oil -- people intentionally presenting dodgy science for money. Those are the 0.01%, if you provide a link I will debunk it.



No scientists agree with you. None. What you are doing is singling out a tiny number of people who have been paid to muddy the waters. There is no genuine scientific controversy about this -- all the controversy is politically motivated.

Provide the link and I will debunk it.[/quote]

I read your link
theconversation.com/climate-scientists-concept-of-net-zero-is-a-dangerous-trap-157368
Even though it was a bit difficult to open owing to being corrupted by the quote tag.
At least we now know you're against net zero. There might be hope for you.

So no data of the consensus forthcoming, not an unusual outcome. You now seem to be claiming that all scientists think AGW is a problem and no scientist at all says otherwise and if anyone does then they are paid to say that. Yet if I recall you said scientists do not lie which is a bit strange as we have many examples of scientists doing exactly that for various reasons from the Piltdown man  to the Sokal affair up to the New Sokal affair and many more.

www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming

NB it is very hard to assess the accuracy of a study if the data on which that study is based and the personnel involved providing subjective opinion within that study cannot be interviewed. Upon such things is a consensus built. Perhaps we should just accept it as true, is that the 'rigorous scepticism' that resides in the scientific method that is supposed to be the bedrock of any scientific hypothesis.

Of course there is data on the consensus otherwise the consensus is only a belief and science is not a belief it is a hypothesis that stands up to all rigorous sceptical questioning. A bland statement that the consensus exists because it you believe it exists has religious connotations that are indeed difficult to counter but stand on their own merits however they are derived.

There are rare examples of what you said did not exist. perhaps there is a scientist lying about global warming and having a good old laugh. In order to negate that possibility what you do is apply rigorous scepticism and try to disprove your own belief and hope it fails. So far the consensus ignores that and belittles dismissses any rigorous sceptics withoiut answering their queries which is not science. You should be a product of an education system in the 70s and 80s which prided itself on raising enquiring minds not minds closed to alternative views without addressing those views. It seems I was mistaken.

The 'very old' article was to do with how the consensus was measured and many of those who believed the consensus referred to Cook et al when queried on their beliefs. 
To be clear I have not said the planet is not warming or that humans are not the a driver all I am asking is where is the undisputed evidence. So far there is little and when it is disputed it is those who question who are addressed not the questions they ask. 
So far you are true to this form.

Utter bullshit.

All The Best