International Falls beats it's all time low by 8 degrees

More extreme weather either up or down can just as easily be linked to environmental change. 

I would leave this stuff to scientists, who are equipped to make this analysis. Just like the Ozone layer, where scientists were able to divert a biological disaster by alerting governments to ban products that damaged the ozone. The giant hole is thankfully recovering-  but this does prove man can significantly affect the environment.  

If I was asked to prove the hole in the ozone layer, the reality is I do not have the scientific skill or technology to do this. I do not even have a telescope, never mind scientific labs with billions of equipment. These are the same crew that are finding stars billions of light years away, checking planetary weather conditions on thousands of worlds. 

It does seem that more scientists believe that Global warming is a risk than those that do not- so I would tend to take the safer route. As above, I would rather rely on those with the tools and skill set to do this- than make the assumption myself with a limited dataset. 

If this proves wrong in the future, so be it. There is no major loss in being over cautious, particularly with the Ozone situation as the proof man can impact the environment. 

If it is right, then it is avoiding a disaster worse than the ozone layer- that may not be irreversible

The EU governments are giving tax rebates for people that move from fossil fuel cars to electric cars- instead of being reliant on fossil fuels (and the Arabic countries who produce a large percent of the oils).

--

1 - consensus is that increase is accelerating. 

2 - The industrial revolution should be the starting point

3 - The sun maybe be slightly, but still negibly warmer

4 - It should not be constant. However given the small period, how accurate is this

5 - The models should not be wrong, but our understanding of science is not 100%

6 - Richard Branson probably could not care less about the environment

7 - There would be some benefits of a warmer climate, but it is assumed that the effects like tidal waves to places on the coastline would not be worth it

8. China does not seem to care about the environment. 

9. Nuclear is not safely contained- yet. We also have people that would like to use Nuclear to destroy countries.

10. This was a better alternative to the ozone hole growing. An upgrade has since happened. It is safe to assume scientists will know more than people that do not work in science- albeit no one is right 100% of the time.

People do accept contrary views, otherwise, action would have been more radical already. No one is sure, but their is not enough data to compare. Not enough data points to be 100% sure of the exact impact.

Private Jets are worsening the problem.

The "gullible" public are relying on scientists, who are more equipped than anyone to make the decision. If I had studied science, and became a scientist I would be more willing to challenge the scientific consensus, if I did not believe it. I have looked at the arguments and from what I can see it is not 100% conclusive but appears to have a solid basis, and it seems to suggest that an increase of 2 degrees over the space of 100 years could be catastrophic. (e.g Tidal waves that could destroy coastal cities). 

To suggest that all the scientists, NASA etc are involved in some type of conspiracy sounds like Beeno's rantics. 

If you were to have a major operation would you have a doctor do this, or attempt the procedure yourself? Doctors are by no means perfect, but they are the most equipped to complete the operation. 

If anything the political motive seems to be from corporations that are people that want to use and sell fossil fuel. Keep the established status quo. 

The only people that could benefit from being anti-fossil fuel are people that are actually selling these products as alternatives to fossil fuels- they would have a commercial motive. 

So, for the average person- the majority of people- they are not going to benefit for either option- in their lifetimes.

The people that would possibly benefit are not even born yet...

Your headline alone could be a justification of global warming. It is an inconsistent temperature. Unless your arguement is that the world is actually getting colder....

Looking at your argument and data points, I think it is clear that it is not conclusive. So you are challenging the scientific majority community with little to no facts, just opinions. Your very basis of discrediting the scientific opinion also derails your own argument. 

The first tell tale sign of some sort of hoax is when politicians and their near family start profiting from the solutions being propagated. How many people know the details of the Paris Accord,  yet have a strong opinion regardless?

"for decades the medical community has told us fat intake is the main cause of heart disease. Now that view has been largely debunked and carbs are seen as the real enemy, while protein diets are increasingly being touted as healthy".

Refuting one scientific claim with another one..... This builds the credence of science, not debunks it. Science will continue to evolve, unlike religion. Some of science is a hypothesis- until proven or disproven  facts. 

I can assure you that saturated fat is still considered to be unhealthy, just like salt is. Even saturated fat is a natural part of the human evolutionary diet, so it should be eaten within moderation. No one has ever said that protein is unhealthy- except a tabloid with a claim such as "scientist agree that xyz", tabloid b etc, etc. 

The two main forms of carbohydrates are: 

1. sugars such as fructose, glucose, and lactose. (Has anyone ever said that lots of sugar is good?).

2. starches, which are found in foods such as starchy vegetables (like potatoes or corn), grains, rice, breads, and cereals. (Some sports people still eat starch to bulk up, while others prefer protein heavy diets to get lean).

----

The Lancet study of 135,000 adults found those who cut back on fats had far shorter lives than those enjoying plenty of butter, cheese and meats

Meat is not fat. Red meat is around 70% protein, and white meat can be up to 90% protein (e.g. turkey). The Lancet crew sound like a bunch of monkeys calling themselves scientists. The fat in meat is often unsaturated fat- which is actually very healthy. If the animal has eaten lots of grain, if may have more saturated fat. 

----

The NHS cautions against having too much-saturated fat, on the grounds it raises cholesterol levels, increasing the risk of heart disease.

Nothing new here, just confirming the accepted opinion that too much-saturated fat is bad for you.

---

low intake of saturated fat raised chances of early death by 13 per cent compared to those eating plenty.'

Fat is a natural part of the human diet, the scientific argument is that too much-saturated fat is bad for you.

--

My grandmother told me to eat pasta and forgo red meat. 

It is often not the food itself, but how it is prepared and preserved that makes it contain saturated fat. Orange juice can be fattening - especially if it has been filled with preservatives.