Amanda Devine is an opinion write from (I think) very much the right of the political spectrum. I suspect her outbursts receive nodding approvals from the north of Sydney. A recent cry-baby piece http://www.smh.com.au/news/miranda-devine/geeks-in-white-coats-shall-inherit-the-earth/2006/03/04/1141191886029.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1 complains that she is a victim of "violent, incoherent, mouth-frothing fury from greenies". Ah poor Miss Devine. Does it occur to her that when she is pointing out that "there is no scientific consensus on the extent of man-made - as opposed to natural - climate change", that this is simply not true.
What defines consensus? How many people have to concur. Perhaps if she could even scan the IPCC report on climate change she might see how many scientists actually contribute to the consensus?
It may be true that since most people have abandoned God, they have made environmentalism "the powerful new secular religion", the accusation that "politically correct scientists are its high priests". I'm yet to meet a PC scientist in the terms she applies since it is part and parcel of the scientific process to be heretical and apolitical (unfortunately this isn't always the case).
There is some remarkable spin in this piece - to characterise the reaction against he ill informed opinion on the level of "the insane reaction in the Islamic world to the Danish Muhammad cartoons". The reaction to her ignorance may be strong, but the emotive language is nothing more than an attempt to draw sympathy.
Moreover, whilst claiming not to be associated with "Monsanto or Western Mining", she again quotes an English Lord and an exploration geologist. Why muddy the water with these views outside of the climate change community.
Once more, ideology rules over facts - highlighting the need for us all to continue to examine what we see and how we see it.