In case you haven't kept up, we are in the 21st century. In this...

I highly recommend ignoring people who call themselves "climate scientists" as the only reason they do that is they do not poses the qualifications required to call themselves meteorologists. In case the concept of a properly qualified individual is new to you think of it like this: A climate scientist is to a meteorologist what an alternative therapist is to a doctor. (I.e you need to get off their "essential oils".)
Take for example one of Australia's very own "world leading climate scientists" - Tim Flannery. With his degree in mammalogy I give him about as much credit with regards to climate issue as I would an "internationally recognised aroma therapist" with regards to cancer. And a quick look at his track record would probably make that an insult to aroma therapists. This fools appointment as a world leader is a slap in the face to all those who do actual work in the field.
And their is no scientific consensus, merely a bureaucratic one. The 97% statistic has been so thoroughly disproven its citation now falls under the same banner of misinformed embarrassment as the cry "evolution is just a theory". 'Consensus' is a word now used to convince the blind believers that all the thinking has been done for them and that it doesn't matter that they don't understand anything themselves they can just go on repeating the provided propaganda. It's the CO2 religions new word for faith. Uttered when the speaker doesn't know what they are saying but assumes that someone else understands on their behalf.
If you still think a "consensus" of the experts is anything to write home about then I invite you to invest based on the Broker Consensus you read in the papers. I promise to come put a few coins in your cup when their "expert" advice has you living under a bridge. And these people are actually qualified in the field in which they are commenting.

In case you haven't kept up, we are in the 21st century. In this time period we have a nifty tech known as satellite imaging/monitoring. Scientists use this neat technology to monitor the health, area and yes even mass of our forests and parks. The tech is so accurate that in some places councils are using it to issue fines to people who remove to much vegetation from their backyards.
If you do not understand the science behind our monitoring of green zones then I suggest you do some reading before attempting mockery of those who do. Might I suggest you start with the search term 'the greening of the earth' and then looking into how it is they know what the know.