The TITLE says it all....

and.. one might venture another 'faith based' Kenny annoyance, by suggesting that 'scientific consensus' on many issues which seek to discredit the Bible and faith are in the same category as highlighted here. "Grants anyone" ?

THE FUNNIEST THING.. well actually there are 2 funny things. One is Tim Flannery on whales.. ROFLx100 howwwww muffed are the Greenpeace/Animal libbers about THAT.. Prof flannery suddenly speaking HERESY!
Another funny thing is an anecdote from my holiday..involving Greenies. The mouth of the chanel at my holiday place is regularly blocked up by sand movements etc. If allowed to remain closed the area will flood and residents have to be evacuated. So it is regularly opened, usually with explosives. BUT WAIT...there is a colony of Arctic Terns which nest there.. OH NOOOOOoooo.. we cannot have big bangs in their vicinity. Aah.. solution? Hand responsibility of opening chanel to the Greenies.
Greeny solution:

SOLUTION 1
1/ Bring in a Bobcat (over large sand dunes and drive it up to the mouth)
Problem.. bobcat is bogged after about 10 minutes.

SOLUTION 2
2/ Bring in All Terrain Rescue Vehicle to rescue the Bobcat.

Problem: ATRV gets bogged in about 20 minutes.

SOLUTION 3

3/ FINAL SOLUTION.. 'blow the chanel with dynamite' :) and indeed they did :)

There seems to be a bit of a trope among those who continue - against the overwhelming weight of evidence - to deny that the earth's climate is changing rapidly due to anthropogenic causes. That minority of individuals who rail against measures to ameliorate this global problem are no longer able to claim that there is insufficient scientific evidence, so they attack the evidence itself by claiming that scientists all over the world who have produced evidence for anthropogenic climate change are simply motivated by filthy lucre.

It seems to me that those who promote this view have little actual knowledge of scientists and the way science works. Having known and worked with many scientists over the years, I can't say that I can recall a single one who is wealthy when compared with other sectors of the population. By and large, people don't become scientists in order to make money, and I think that this trope is largely a product of those selfish and greedy types who project their own base motivations on to others.

The other kind of denialism is evidenced by puerile and inane comments such as that above from good old Boazy, who has demonstrated many times in this forum his lack of comprehension of science. Fortunately for the rest of us, denialists who are motivated by greedy self-interest, blissful ignorance or childish envy of those who are more intelligent than themselves are increasingly in the minority.

You forgot to mention time. The skeptics of and the proponents of Climate change are both subject to it.

Take the world, the pressures it is subjected to it(Earth) will adjust to in its own time. The pressures humans are put under they will react in their own time. The events that take place in this adjustment(Earth) will directly or indirectly affect the world. The problem is humans live short lives, are easily alarmed and will react to what's going on around them.

Lets use Newtons 3 laws:
1. We already started the ball rolling by putting our stamp on the world.
2. The world was traveling at its own pace until pressured upon. This brings the 3rd law into play.
3. Accelerated pressure on the Earth by humans is causing accelerated reaction on the part of the Earth.

This brings my first part about time into play. The Earth will react in it's own time and place. Due to acceleration there will be a higher number of events taking place in the world(Newtons Law). Humans will react or adjust rapidly? How if they cannot come up with a solution soon enough. They WILL react. This is a world with 6 billion people. Maybe we should send you out to face the masses when they are ready to react.

The problem with you sir is you are playing politics and pretending to be humorous about it, while at the same time trying to undermine anything constructive taking place concerning climate change. You would be better of to accept climate change as accepted theory and looking for flaws from within. The PROBABILITY of pointing out any flaws are much higher. By the way business uses probability does it not??

Col Rouge,

Lemmings do not jump off cliffs. The movie that showed them doing so was faked: they were chased off the cliff by the movie-makers - an act that should have had said movie-makers up on animal cruelty charges and probably would have had it been this year and not decades ago.

Anyone remember the Y2K bug? That was a similar panic, backed by a similar apparent 'consensus' -- in other words, the media reported the hystericals and ignored everyone else -- and it turned out to have no foundation in fact. Yes, there were a few problems. But they were problems that could be fixed, and we fixed them in good time.

Humans need to have something to fear; it promotes solidarity. It's no coincidence that the Global Warming bogeyman is appearing just as the terrorism bogeyman is running out of steam. And the fear is always of unknown consequences. If someone told you as a fact that your suburb was going to be one degree hotter in fifty years' time, would you really care? But tsunamis! hurricanes! drought! Unknown consequences are much scarier -- and make much better stories -- than the truth, which is that climate changes gradually all the time, has done so since long before people appeared, and will continue to do so long after people have gone.

I like it.It may be humourous but there is more than a bit of acid truth reflected in the reality.Climate has always changed but is C02 the main culprit?