“He is seemingly unaware that the debate has been and gone and only a few renegades are left manning the crumbling edifice of what was once thought to be a credible sceptical position.”

Rubbish! There has been no debate. Dissenting voices have been gagged by the media, the Government and by fundamentalist activists.
Bob Carter recently quoted Prof. Fred Singer as saying:

“The battle over warming and low (carbon) politics will not be decided over scientific issues. It will be determined by governments and law-makers on the basis of politics and special interests.”

Carter himself:

“Indeed; and the greatest Australian special interest of all lies with the average voter upon whom Prime Minister Rudd and Climate Minister Wong plan to impose their unnecessary, ineffectual and swingeingly costly carbon dioxide tax”.

Unfortunately, voters have been lied too and fooled by computer models which seem very impressive to people without scientific knowledge.

The Australian voter has been mislead by the warming fanatics, and we should be very pleased that Senator Fielding has, at last, cottoned on to the lies.

It is to be hoped that Senator Fielding is able to boost the chances of having the ludicrous, useless and money grubbing carbon tax knocked out of contention for good.

Senator Fielding did not have to go to America to come to his new-found conclusions; all he had to do was read the introduction to Ian Plimer’s “Heaven+Earth: Globing Warming: The Missing Science”.
Plimer shows that, far from being scientific, the scientists who blame climate change on human activity have totally ignored most of the science related to global warming and cooling, and have concentrate one very small and insignificant element, carbon dioxide.

It is poor and incorrect science which is going to lead to an enormous and totally useless financial impost on Australia and Australians. There are more than a dozen other natural factors that have caused climate change throughout history (when there was no industrially generated CO2) which have been totally ignored by scientists.

The CO2 theory is just a theory. Nothing else has been investigated.

Dear me, is this sort of behavior by a politician a threat to your income from alarmist books and publications is it?

So you spray sewerage at anyone with a different point of view, or only those threatening your income?

Next we'll have kulu, another alarmist poster, here with more vague references to Senator Fielding being "funded by sources unknown" to go to this conference in the USA.

"has he the right to demand a rerun of the debate, further delaying measures to prevent climate change, while he plays catch up?"

1. Rerun the debate - what debate? We were told from the get go the "science is not to be questioned, there is a consensus" and no questioning was allowed. how about we HAVE a debate, you might even be able to get out another book.

2. You and who are going to "prevent climate change", so how are you going to change it and by how much - do you have everyone's agreement to how much it will be changed? Will it change more in the equatorial than upper latitudes? How idiotic, prevent climate change, you really are in a dream world - all we can do is adapt

I guess this sort of article works wonders on small minds in universities though, seems to be the home of cluster thought nowadays, no lateral thinking or questioning allowed anymore.

They used to accuse PM John Howard of dog whistle politics, this article is in that vein and deliberately adversarial to stir emotion.

What an extraordinary article. It's one thing to disagree with Senator Fielding's views but to argue that he has no right to call for a debate is about as undemocratic a position as I can imagine. I note that Professor Beder teaches at the University of Wollongong. I hope she does not impose this sort of intolerance on her students and clearly separates her personal views from her teaching.

Leigh, your ignorance and/or bias is showing.
The real science has been going on for over 20 years and all *valid* theories are up for consideration. Yes, the invalid theories of crackpots that the evidence contradicts have fallen by the wayside. This is how science works. No one is going to ignore a solid lead for 20 years in case someone else proves it and gets the Nobel prize. Transparent peer reviewed journals means that the political approach of flooding media with controversy does not work.
"Nothing else has been investigated" is just plain bulls&^t.
Please read the back issues of Nature and New Scientist to see how ridiculous this statement is.
Computer models are *not* the basis of the theory, they are merely attempts to create specific predictions so as to hone the science further. This creation of simple straw men by the faux-skeptics to misrepresent the science is an unfortunate tactic: very unethical.
The recent "skeptics" seem to be upset that they cannot come along with childish theories and have them taken seriously. I laugh when teenagers come up with "deep" theories and think them original. The same attitude by adults to well established science like climate change and evolution is completely irresponsible.
Fielding was completely disingenuous going to a biased industry "Think tank". Like going to a church to ask opinions on God.
We allow Bankers and consultants to get rich while being totally wrong, yet attack the honest messengers when they warn of danger.
Disgusting politics.

I have to agree with Leigh, and add that the author of the article should not throw stones in a glass greenhouse. She is obviously deeply commited to the green cause, to the ploint of earning royalties if not her part of her living through environment activities. Prof Beder wouild have a great deal to lose if the AGW hypothesis is knocked over. I would not hold that against her if she then did not have the appalling cheek to accuse others of saying things because they are biased or in the pay of corporations.
One of the key features of the climate change debate is that it has been driven by very vocal group of activists such as Beder. Among other activities, these activists join Al Gore's organisation and go on lecture tours - the sort of lectures that ignore the science and any developments in the debate in favour of hammering home nightmare scenarios that won't happen. And then tbhey accuse others of hiding the truth. Sadley, the ransk of the activitists include a number of scientists.
On the other hand, the sceptics are mostly disorganised, and often don't take the trouble to properly brief themselves. Fieldings comments about "solar flares" are typical - he meant solar activity.
Now look at the link below. To anyone untrained in climate science it looks suspiciously as if global temps are coming off a peak. Will they continue to go down, or is this some sort of lengthy pause (a decade to date) before they go up again? Who knows. Activists and even scientists turn themselves inside out trying to prove that temperatures have not really declined in the last decade (one scientist I spoke to tried to redefine down), but for people like Beder the trend is a distinct worry. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm

The experts have had honest debates about this subject.
It is the dishonesty in the skeptics positions, the obvious industry associations, the use of Big Tobacco style "think tanks" and the consistent use of "new" evidence that is not peer reviewed: All this does deserve to be condemned.
I can't believe the same group that supported the notion that cigarettes are not proven to be bad can be taken seriously when they say "GW is just a baseless theory with no evidence". It's called "lying" people, and when there is money involved people do it.
I'll be the first to admit that Labour's "solution" is impractical, expensive and bad for all (except the industrialists)... But to attack valid science with politically inspired nonsense and feel-good theory is *wrong*.
For the record I *do* believe we have bigger fish to fry: The population crisis will impact fresh water, forests, ocean life and finally humans. Shifting climate will make things just that much harder. Soil is like rain forest. It wont relocate to the rainy areas overnight and we are still destroying what is there. Please study the implications of exponential growth. The "crunch" is closer than common sense can perceive.

While Fielding was in America courtesy of the Heartland Institute, it's a pity he didn't look up the folks at the United States Global Change Research Program, which is a joint venture between the White House and 13 federal agencies.

Yesterday they released a report entitled "Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States" [ http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts ].

From ABC News:

<< The report is the first issued since Barack Obama became President and it contains the strongest language on climate change to come out of the White House.

A lead author of the report, Dr Jerry Melillo, says climate change is fact, not opinion.

"It is clear that climate change is happening now. The observed climate changes we report are not opinions to be debated. They are facts to be dealt with," he said. >>

[ http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/17/2600335.htm ]

I'm more inclined to believe a diverse group of multi-agency government scientists than a discredited bunch of industry shills like those at the Discovery Institute, but I'm not a born-again fundy hypocrite.

And Curmudgeon - Professors in Australian universities are quite well-paid. Your scurrilous comments regarding Prof Beder's motivations are not only contemptible, but also hypocritical in the extreme - coming from a journalist.

Personally, I think Wong's proposed ETS is a dog, but Fielding's hypocrisy is not the way to deal with it.

Erk - I meant Heartland Institute, of course.

A good liar first convinces him/herself that the lie is true and then proceeds to try and convince others.

Unfortunately for the deniers the evidence is overwhelmingly against them and their history of underhand tactics as followed by the tobacco industry, Exxon Mobil etc has been exposed for all to see.

The more the lies, the more their strategies and tactics are exposed.

Thank you Sharon for publicizing the untenability of Fielding's position on climate change.

This explains it all!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5329857034306331360

Any other opinion is just BullSh!t People all over the world need to grow a pair and put these fraudsters where they belong, in the nut house.

First, the general considered opinion that Senator Fielding would perhaps not be in any Parliament in any true democracy. He represents a very small fundimentalist religious portion of our Australian public, obtaining his Parliamentary seat by a peculiar quirk of the voting law. Yet he has the Parliamentary power to oppose or circumvent the wishes of the majority of the voting public. Appears to be quite wrong.
To trot of to the USA, surmised at taxpayer expense, to investigate or perhaps reinforce his existing climate change beliefs, only highlights his apparent lack of all round political knowledge. Of course in keeping with his particular beliefs the USA is said to be
the fount of all knowledge?
One has only to look at the Australian rainfall pattern over the last 10 years to observe the quite dramatic normal weather change to abnormal weather change. This has coincided with the also quite dramatic increase( can I say explosion?) in fossil fuel usage. "Senator Fielding just look out of the window"!

cjmorgan - "Professors in Australian universities are quite well-paid. Your scurrilous comments regarding Prof Beder's motivations are not only contemptible, but also hypocritical in the extreme.."

Hmm .. also applies thus, surely .."Professors in Australian universities are quite well-paid. Your scurrilous comments regarding Prof Plimer's motivations are not only contemptible, but also hypocritical in the extreme .."

I don't remember you coming out defending Prof Plimer while all and sundry of the devout were castigating him for writing a book just for financial gain .. did you? So do you apply the same defence to Prof Plimer or is a selective outrage you suffer from?

Jack from Bicton and kulu, you will look very foolish if Senator Fielding, who is neither sceptic nor believer, falls on the believers side should the "science" convince him. Or are you so unsure of the science, since you rely on personal attacks, that you know he can't be convinced, is the science so weak you have to berate people into your camp? If he does fall on the believers side, will he still be a liar, kulu?

BTW - Senator Fielding paid his own way to the USA and has made that clear every time he speaks, keep trying though, you play the man badly but one day might even attempt to play the ball.

Well, I'm half hoping the climate changers are right as we need to reduce carbon emissions. Even so, I am far from convinced. It would be great to have a public debate on this issue. Not a media grandstand but a public debate where all the ideas and science were flushed out. Too important for TV.

I have a few problems with Fielding. He's not up to scratch and only got in on ALP prefs. I bet they're kicking themselves. It's a strange system when two senators (one who's only claim to fame is he's against pokies) can veto government legislation.

We're seeing a curious amalgam of positions. The anti-corporatists sitting next to the anti-populationists. These two groups are diametrically opposed to each other. There will be tears.

Ozandy,

I think that you are the ignorant and biased and biased one. You can think whatever you wish to think, but there is no need to tell me about it. You are one of these people who won't wake up to the lies of "science" until it bites you on the bum; or, at least, until the huge and totally futile costs of stupidly trying to influence climate change bite you on the bum.

You have nothing more to add to the nonsense already sprouted by other green loonies who don't know their elbows from their backsides.

This reference sums up the world-view and "culture" that the Heart(less)land Institute, and its fellow right wing true believers effectively promote.

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/exploit-the-earth-or-die.asp

Pure psychosis.

Beder has made a career of questioning the motives of those who oppose the current climate orthodxy, therefore to question her own motives for making statements can hardly be hypocritical. Nor is it anyone's fault that she is more vulnerable to these charges than anyone she attacks. In other words, if Beder or any of her defenders do not like the heat on this issue then they should not start such a debate.
Further, we are still left with the problem that scientists still don't know why the earth flips in and out of ice ages (what they thought they knew about this got knocked over recently); have no idea why the present intergalacial (the break between two ice ages) has proved to be so long compared with the previous two at least, and have no real idea why the roman warm period, or the medieval warm period occured. They know the sun must have a hand in there somewhere - hence Fielding's conversion - but the exact mechanism is still a mystery. There are good grounds of believing that the sun is behind some of the small scale changes recorded recently (the changes in the last 1,000 years count as small scale), yet what scientists thought they knew about the sun also got knocked over recently. So why should we pay the slightest attention to these models based on industrial emissions - models that shed no light on any of the above problems in science? Fielding has a point.

These two very stark images also express the power mad barbaric and psychotic world-view of the techno-"realists" at the Heart-less Institute and the "objective" standard.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~library/Orozco/panel13.html

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~library/Orozco/panal14.html

A quote from my favourite philosopher.

"In the Old Testament it is suggested that Man exercise dominion over beasts and growing things. This is an acknowledgement that Man. in the form of every human individual, is not only functionally or structurally more or greater than anything else in the natural or elemental world, but that his happiness and even his survival depend on his acceptance of responsibility for everything in himself that is common to the rest of the natural world.

Thus, it is not merely that he is naturally superior to cattle, snakes, vegetables, and the elements, and, therefore, should force all such things into degraded submission to his own aggressive and stupid will to eat and use and do everything.....

..... Hence, we "play" with everything, but we cannot control our effects. We slaughter, exploit, poison, and spoil. We achieve power over great natural forces in the environment, but we cannot be the loving master of sex, or population, or industrial wastes, or international politics. Therefore, we are a destructive influence in the natural world, where beasts and elements consistently demonstrate an instinctual economy and harmony that puts our human vulgarities to shame."

These sub-human (even anti-human) vulgarities are what the "objective" standard celebrates as our greatest achievement and imperative.

Never mind that an "objective" point of view always occurs entirely as a subjective process and interpretation.

Plus it is now common knowledge that we never see the world as it is. And that everything we see "out there" is a brain and nervous system created, and projected, apparition or vision.

kulu,

if you have the cruets, put your accusation about the funding of Fielding's trip to the US on the public record, with your name attached, instead of dropping slimy insinuation under anonymity.

And you have the nerve to refer to "underhand tactics"!

Go take a look in the mirror, and count your old boys while you're at it. There should be two.

I'm currently reading Plimer's book before it gets subjected to the book burnings. Clearly a bloke who sees the big picture because he has a big mind, as opposed to those who see the small picture.

"Plus it is now common knowledge that we never see the world as it is. And that everything we see "out there" is a brain and nervous system created, and projected, apparition or vision."

Thank you Ho Hum. I see my apparitional Milo is ready.

How dare Senator Fielding expect some science to back the man made global warming religion. Being a Professor in Social sciences surely qualifies Professor Sharon Beder more than an engineering degree (right). Thankfully more and more are waking up to the fraudulent claims of Al Gore and Tim Flannery. Sharon obviously isn't one of them.

I really don't like the word Skeptic . If I don't know much about a subject I might decide to borrow a couple of books from the Library and from them come to some conclusions , Senator Fielding did something similar we both decided to study the science up a bit , now some influential people want to brand me and sneer "skeptic" there by injuring my efforts . My knowledge cost me a lot of time and 50 bucks for Prof Plimer's "Bible on Climate History Plus".

I regard myself as a "Conservative" plus " Greenie" or at least I did ; now I skip the Green bit , I now find the Greens too arrogant , their we know best attitude seems to me to be ignorance exemplified their teaching mantra lost crippled by fashionable know all's. What a shame a definite loss to the community of man .

As for Senator Fielding it is entirely up to him to draw conclusions from what he learned in America and act accordingly as are his voters at the ballot box . We should applaud the Senator for traveling so far to to get up to speed on what is going to be a very expensive project for very little gain in my opinion .

You all seem to be missing a more important point.
Forget the climate change,the problem is that peak oil is passed and we are not ready to live without it.
Renewable energy means that the fossil fuel can be left in the ground or at least used only slowly.
The already overlarge and increasing population means the energy emergency will be sooner and more sudden than need be.
Bill Gates ,don't waste money supporting male cicumcision.Spend it on
condoms instead to protect from infection AND to reduce the population growth.
Energy is used directly and to make fertilizer.
Energy now is divided by 6,000,000,000.
When it is divided by 9,000,000,000 and suddenly stops then no one will care about climate change.

"Further delaying measures to prevent climate change".
If Senator Fielding held the balance of power in (say) China, USA or India perhaps his tactics would amount to something other than a miniscule impact on global carbon emissions. What we do in Australia in the absence of reduction measures taken by the world's leading emitters of carbon dioxide and methane amounts to bugger-all on a global scale.

why all this heat on fielding? of course he's allowed to consider whatever evidence he wishes. of course he's allowed to take a stand on whatever he thinks worthwhile. senator fielding is honest, hard working, and well-intentioned. it's just that he also happens to be as dumb as a rock.

The global population is still growing at 80 million a year,
so the whole Australian population could be replaced in 90 days.

Given that fact, it hardly matters if climate change is being
influenced by humans or if isn't. Even if it is, what Australians
do, will be little more then a feelgood factor. The big
picture is far larger then a few Greenies pedalling to work on
their bikes, or dealers trading in carbon emissions.

Lets get real children. We could shift our aluminium smelters to
China, our CO2 figures would look dramatically better. We could
stop exporting coal and go broke. Would the Chinese stop making
steel or stop using coal for electricity? Do not kid yourselves.

If you are going to do something, it has to have a measurable effect
and given the global situation, who can show me that whatever
Australia does, will actually have a global effect?

Prof. Beders last paragraph says all about her position .

Science requires everything to be tested , but not Beders science apparently Beder is always right .
That she can philosophize on Fielding's intent and question the US hosts qualifications , what a hide she has ; Beder has no Climate related qualifications .
Beder is the product of the ALP and Greens "Spin Shop".
The Spinners love the Professor bit.
Comes under the edict: 'BS Baffles Brains'

Yabby, completely agree with you there is no way known that we can actually affect climate let alone change it, slow it down or reverse it.

I think deep down most people know and accept that.

However the benefits of finger wagging and pontificating at people who:

1. Have more stuff than you.
2. Have things you think they shouldn't.
3. Consume more than you like.
4. Seem to get away with it all with no ill effect.

is just to good to be true. Pompous arrogant folks like to wade in and spray around how much they think everyone should have bugger all and should all be in misery and pain in exchange for any benefit.

The human condition is to improve your lot in life and that of your offspring, so electricity, water, health care and education are high on the list.

Sure we could pollute less, but the message from the current eco warriors is that we should all return to the stoneage.

BTW - in the stoneage, they ate organic food, had clean air, pristine water and a life expectancy of around 35 for a male. Go figure.

Fungo, I'm not accusing Fielding of anything, merely thinking out loud to try and understand what and why the man is doing what he is doing.

Enjoy reading your Plimer but perhaps you might then read some critic's view of his work and do a little investigation of your own on the claims he makes and the counter claims made by his critics.

Once you are finished with that exercise it might be worth your while checking out the science behind the idea that the Earth is not flat.

They said the earth was flat, then it was the centre of the universe with everything revolving round it, the printing press was evil, going into space would bring down the wrath of god as we are forbidden to enter heaven. With just about every scientific advancement they've either denied it, or tried to suppress it's implementation. They're prepared to murder and torture those who disagree with them or their ideals, blame everyone else for their mistakes and continue to deny anything not fitting into their day dreams. Fearful sceptics are probably the worlds biggest problem, they seem to be in denial on many important subjects of life's reality.

Climate change is a fact, it's the degree it will effect life which is the only question and we really don't have a clue about that, yet it may not be much at all. No amount of models, predictions or denials will change what lies ahead for life, we can only guess and if sensible prepare. As already pointed out, climate change is really irrelevant, it's the hundreds of other looming problems being ignored completely, which are going to bring humanity to it's knees.

People who live in cities probably haven't noticed much at all, but those who live of the land and sea can see huge changes effecting the environment and their viable future. Peak oil is a minor problem compared to ecological collapse of the food chain, nothing can stop that once it gets a hold and it's not very far from the point of no return, where biodiversity collapses like a pack of cards.

If people of both sides of the debate actually made some small change to their lifestyles and approach to life, we may not have a debate like this at all. It's depends on whether we're prepared to take personal responsibility for what we do in life, or leave it to chance and head in the sand hope.

There are three issues in play here. The first is whether the scientific consensus about the human causes of global warming is correct. The second is whether the Heartland Institute manufactures corporate propaganda. The third is whether Senator Fielding is intellectually capable of sound judgement about climate change mitigation measures. In my opinion the first issue is a matter for the relevant scientists to decide. This is the way that science works: non-scientists cannot participate in scientific knowledge formation. So, if you want to challenge the scientific consensus, without high level training in a relevant scientific field, you have to associate your beliefs with some other competing epistemological authority, like religion, perhaps. This would seem a little unwise to me, but creationists, for instance, are prepared to try this approach in another area.
The second issue, concerning the Heartland Institute, can easily be settled in the affirmative by a visit to their website and a quick perusal of web-based analysis of the organisation.
This leaves the more problematic third issue concerning Senator Fielding's intellectual capacity. It is difficult to find any in-depth information about this person at short notice. But it seems he belongs to a political party that was founded, and is sponsored by, a Christian sect named the Assemblies of God. This sect apparently falls into the branch of Protestantism known as Pentacostal which is distinguished by encouraging members of congregations to roll around on the floor and talk in tongues. Now, what enters my mind in trying to assess Senator Fielding's intellectual capacity is an imagined picture of him rolling around on the floor and talking in tongues. I'm not saying he does this. I don't know. What I'm saying is that he seems to have been sent to Canberra to represent people who do practice this eccentricity. And I'm wondering whether this background might indicate a limitation of intellect powers when assessing scientific matters.

so hazy notion you are deeming the "consensus" to be the sole arbiter on scientific knowledge, can I then assume you believe science to be a democracy, and if more than 50% of scientists believe something, like 51%, thus it is true - or is it 52% or 67% or 90.875% .. what's to be the line for a consensus to be "scientific fact" - sorry, lot's of people do not see science as a popularity contest the way you apparently do - but I see it fits your belief system perfectly.

So you are only questioning one member of parliament's ability, background, intelligence and fitness for the role, as if all the other members of parliament, by not attending this conference are to be deemed intelligent? (I assume only if they are "true believers" is that correct?)

How convenient, I didn't realize it was so easy - what if someone else is offended by them being religious at all, like our PM who claims to be a Christian, of another sect I can't even remember the name of, surely he can't be allowed to have any capacity to affect this either, or heaven forbid (obvious dig) represent a community?

His particular sect apparently pretends, once a week, that they drink the blood and eat the flesh of a dead man and worship an effigy nailed to a piece of wood. "I'm not saying he does this", but like you "I'm wondering whether this background might indicate a limitation of intellect powers when assessing scientific matters."

Have we dealt with Penny Wong, anyone else you'd care to cast aspersions at and scurrilously back stab and character assassinate? It's easy enough to cast mud at people and their beliefs. If you were sure of your camp's point of view, there would be no need for this sort of devious poison.

Your sewerage encrusted piece belongs on a tabloid opinion writer's blogsite, I'm sure they would welcome your views

"Being a Professor in Social sciences surely qualifies Professor Sharon Beder more than an engineering degree (right). Thankfully more and more are waking up to the fraudulent claims of Al Gore and Tim Flannery. Sharon obviously isn't one of them."

Ah....this promises to be an interesting thread with knuckle dragging deniers bobbing and weaving - throwing faeces at the author.

Sharon Beder is an engineer whose works have been widely recognised.

What's that about "dumb as a rock" bushbred?

kulu: "I'm not accusing Fielding of anything, merely thinking out loud to try and understand what and why the man is doing what he is doing."

Oh dear. Is that a retraction? What a spineless piece of work you are!

Here's some out loud thoughts for you:

1) He's one of your elected officials. Perhaps you could ask him. Some journos have on your behalf, and having ignored his answers, you insinuate dishonesty.
2) Put your comment on the public record with your name attached, and if it gets to it, we'll see what a court makes of your "merely thinking out loud" defence.
3) Next time you're thinking out loud, don't let your slow and clunky thoughts fall onto the keyboard.

Now I get it bushbred.

According to the Daily Telegraph, Steve Fielding told a Senate hearing last February that divorce adds to the impact of global warming as couples switch to wasteful single lifestyles and it would be better for the planet if couples stayed married.

What this hypocrite failed to allude to was the massive carbon footprint he and his fifteen siblings have created.

The Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change was established in 1988. The debate in the public arena on climate change has raged for at least a decade yet Fielding (aka Rip Van Winkle,) after cosying up to Plimer and the Heartland Institute, has suddenly got a brainwave to place a spanner in the works by wanting to now know whether Penny Wong has considered the effect of solar radiation on global temperature!

As a SMH commentator noted:

“There's something very wrong with the voting system when a party that polls so moderately, and an individual so poorly, ends up not only in the Senate but able to thwart the agenda of the popularly elected government.”

protagoras, i assume you're referring to my post.

needless to say, i wasn't really defending fielding. i do think he is sincere, even if he's currently playing the role of patsy. but he really is a sad, silly fellow.

and i have no time for the clueless, anti-science nonsense which passes for climate debate on OLO. i just think beder got the wrong end of the stick.

Beder should spend some time better understanding how the Senate works. Fielding is one voice out of 100 or so, so he needs a majority of senators to support him if the debate that Beder so opposes is to be held. Maybe she should ask some insightful questions about the other senators who want to delay the ETS Bill until after the Copenhagen conference.