Our record temperatures, or are they?

Which evidence is not questionable?  We can see temperatures are questionable, we know that the evidence that CO2 is the culprit is a hypothesis not proven by observations, we know CO2 has galloped away these past 40 years and temperature has not followed, we know the models at best way overegg the pudding, we are told all storms and droughts and hurricanes and typhoons and rainfall are becoming worse but the evidence that that is so is pretty thin on the ground if it exists at all, we know that sea level rise is happening but at a very gentle pace not in line with the dire warnings, we have been warned the Arctic and the Antarctic are melting at a rapid rate of knots yet the ice and sea ice keep accumulating in unexpected places. The evidence that it is not an emergency is the stronger evidence of the two propositions.
You now ask the time honoured question as regards legacies.  Along similar lines as religions. Be a pious person or you will pay for it later, or your issue will. 
If we accept the warnings then it will be the hoi polloi that will suffer, with a greater number of  deaths in winter, more infant mortality, more hunger and malnutrition and a lower birthrate as no measures will be successful until population declines unless the cuts and restrictions are severe. If we accept the emergency those measures will become ever more stringent. We condemn people to poverty now or poverty later. Not much of a choice. There are other choices. None are good, but all are solutions.

I suspect minds greater than mine have already given it much thought an that is why t narrative is pushed so hard against reality.

Just a thought if the emergency is as stated why on earth are we increasing our population at such a rapid rate. Every extra person increases our emissions. If net zero is a worthy goal then population increase works against that goal directly either in our own emissions or our exported emissions by way of imports.

Are you saying the man in the street should not bear the costs of his consumerist lifestyle?
Are you saying we should be able to live a life free of the consequences of our actions and choices?


All The Best

No and no. However it is deciding what the costs are that is the problem as well as the consequences. Currently one suspects that too much is demanded of him and the consequences he is told are his to bear are at best conjectural and at worst bare-faced lies.

Which consequence of the man in the street living the life he does now is 100% real other than eventually running out of viable oil reserves?

What you are experiencing is weather, snow still falls in much of the country and where and how much depends on many variables. Record rainfalls, record temperatures (highest and lowest) often occur in different locations, record snowfalls and strongest winds do much the same. It seems that no matter what weather anyone gets it is a harbinger of man made disaster, everything is bad. It is just weather as there is no indication in any of the averages that things are becoming worse, instead there is a gentle warming trend. This may mean a couple of extra deaths in summer but a lot less deaths in winter and much less use of energy.

Don't be obtuse.

Weather is day to day.
Climate is decade to decade.

If I used to have snow frequently, but don't have any snow for a few days then that may not be any significant.

If I used to have snow frequently, but now have had no snow at all for nearly a decade, then that is highly likely evidence of a significant shift.


All The Best

Bit of a sweeping statement. Capitalism has also provided most of the major advances we see. But my point was that there's an obvious political reason why many of the bodies that promote the CO2 theory of warming want the  elimination of fossil fuel.