Foxy, you are missing the point.
I don't care about who's fault it is, because if I'm to follow your line of thought you would still be backing the wrong horse.
OK, let's say the scientists have proven, beyond reasonable doubt, that they are right.
If it is so dammingly obvious that the situation is very, or extremely serious or grave, then why hasn't the point been made to do something real or tangible and three dimensional about it?
You can keep banging on about the pollies as much as you like, but I would like to throw in a quick question.
Given that the scientists are so credible and believable, and given that the CC is SOOOOOO serious, would it not be in the pollies, and their family's interest to implement these renewable energy mediums?
One of the answers is that the problem is not as grave as promoted and so nothing is actually happening, of any substance.
So when you can come up with a half reasonable answer, like, even though we can see pollution, it is difficult to make predictions, because it is a variable and ever changing thing, you might get a go.
And so it is easier to speak in half truths, because that way you can hedge your bets 50/50 either way in case you need to retract or concede something.
So to recap; if the scientists are so smart, then the govt, must believe them and actually do something about it like build something to mitigate this 'huge' threat.
Now because we have not seen anything physical to offset this 'huge' threat, it is logical and reasonable to accept that the problem is not as serious or urgent as promoted.
OR WE WOULD SEE SOMETHING REAL HAPPENING!

SR,

Re:Fauxachontas.
Well if you thought you won that argument you're even more delusional than I thought, and that's saying something.

You now say that "Trump said Warren did not have any indigenous ancestry". But that's not what Trump said. He said he'd pay if it was shown she was an Indian. How do I know this? Well its not hard to find the actual quote but one such source was a post on these very pages from a certain Mr Redux... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8485#268276

Now I'll readily agree with you that its never wise to believe anything from this Redux fellow, but on this occasion he got it right - he can't be wrong ALL the time.

She said she was an Indian.
He said he'd pay $1m if she proved it.
She now admits she's not an Indian.
A slam-dunk that anyone with the slightest understanding of logic would accept. Clearly that leaves you out in the cold.

_____________________________________________________________

Belly, I was simply pointing out that, while you were complaining of the mindless insult, you were indulging in it to the max. Look up hypocrisy.

__________________________________________________________

As to GW, clearly there is a large number of people who think, without the slightest evidence, that there's a consensus among the 'experts' that we're-all-gunna-die if we don't bow to the climate deity. There is no such consensus, there is no evidence for it, and there is no certainty that the predictions of the alarmist fringe will come true. But explaining that to the true believers is as useless as arguing with the 'runners' of this world about the consensus around his deity. They want it to be true and the lack of proof isn't even a mere inconvenience to such beliefs. So its hardly worth offering contrary facts.

mhaze,

In other words you negate the evidence that
world scientists, scientific organisations,
(including Australia's own reputable CSIRO)
and America's NASA provide. We understand where you're
coming from. However, we prefer to listen to evidence based
claims. Little has changed since Galileo
was put under house arrest by the Vatican for saying that the
earth moved around the sun. (in fact, in 1633 the Church made him
recant his theory of the universe). Little has changed when
ignorance and vested interests are confronted by scientific facts.

New ideas, instead of being welcome for the opportunities they
open up for the improvement of the human lot, are seen as threats
to those who are comfortable in their ideologies
(religious or otherwise).

ALTRAV,

I did explain why action is slow in being taken.
You seem to have a problem understanding the complexities
involved. Typing in caps - is like shouting at someone.
It just doesn't help the situation or make up for your
lack of understanding. Go back and re-read my post.
Perhaps you might eventually get what's being said.
At least give it a try.

mhaze,

The following link may help you better understand the
Elizabeth Warren situation because clearly you're somewhat
confused:

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/elizabeth-warren-releases-dna-results-showing-she-has-native-american-n920056

Foxy, I 'did read' your comment.
Did you read mine?
To clarify, I and billions of other people know pollution exists, so that is not in question.
What is in question is the 'extent' of this pollution, and it's 'real' threat to humanity.
My point has always been that if the experts are right, then even a selfish politician must see that if not him, but his children, will be put at risk, in the future, so knowing this fact and having the power to do something about it by arranging the construction of these magical renewable energy sources to mitigate CC, would they not have done this decades ago, rather than do nothing, as if CC is not as severe as touted by so many.
Then that would lead to the question about half truths.
In that there is truth in CC, but exactly how much of the truth is true.
I hope you can identify the salient points in my post, because like CC they are very subtle and can easily be missed.

//"The mindless insult...what is it that brings people to be so outright dreadful when talking of those with another opinion"

Yeah, right-on. Like calling some a flat-earther, a denier or just stupid because they have different views on the THE science (sarc).//

Dude... the earth is flat. Don't tell me you've been suckered in by the globuralists. You seemed smarter than that.

//There is no such consensus, there is no evidence for it//

Yeah, just like globuralism... but you still swallowed it, hook, line & sinker. Show me the proof of a globe. Show me proof of consensus in the globe model. Until you put up hard proof that I'm willing to accept of the ludicrous globe model, I see no reason to accept any fanciful claims about balls hanging in space, when any fool can see that all the water would run off the bottom.