Part of it is that in your scenario, there's no opposing opinion. Scientists across the board agree on the eclipse and the timing. With other scientific research, we are more calloused... how many scientists paid by RJ Reynolds denied for years there were any significant health risks from smoking? How many paid scientists from Monsanto say modified foods are anything but perfectly safe? How about scientists and sugar / fat? Sugar scientists won out, fat was deemed evil, sugar went into everything, and now everybody is fat and diabetic.
Now with global warming, again there are dissenting opinions depending on who is paying for the "research", or what political party affiliation is behind publishing which results.
I'm with Greg. The earth has been heating and cooling for many cycles, long before man or the evil internal combustion engine was in the scene. I'm inclined to think most of it is due to a natural cycle and not man. That said, I'm open to the possibility that man is possibly accelerating the cycle. To what degree I'm not certain - although I'm skeptical it is anything too significant (for once, no doomsday theory from me!
).