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.