Global Warming

This has been bothering me for a while. There are 2 major things that worry me about Anthropogenic Global Warming. First, we are worried about the consensus of scientists (and those falsely so called) more than the facts. A consensus of scientists believed that we lived in a geocentric universe, that the world was flat, and that it was a good idea to bleed a sick individual. So much for the consensus. Show me facts and hard data. I don't care what "the majority" thinks. Second, Anthropogenic Global Warming is a plastic theory. No matter what the data indicates, it's proponents can twist the interpretation of them to "prove" their theory. This is the definition of bad science. A true theory needs to be expressed in such a way that it can be proved or disproved. When that key element is overlooked, the theory looses all it's value because it is impossible to test. I understand the global warming argument about colder than average years is that it's supposed to be the average temperature is increasing, but that we may actually see dips every once in a while. In light of that, it seems that a useful statistic to check would be the record highs. You would think that we would see an increase in the number of record highs set in a decade if the average temperature is increasing. Surprisingly, most of the records were set in the late nineteenth century, or early twentieth. On average, we see between 2 and 4 records broken each decade. Except for the last one. In this past decade (actually a couple years over a decade, but who's counting) we have seen exactly 0 high temperature marks set. Odd. Does this count as an inconvenient truth?