Steve Fielding today draws analogies between Al Gore and Billy Graham, the famous evangelical preacher of the last century. He has had a piece published in The Australian with a controversial graph which appears to de bunk the central tenet of Green Religion, that man and his CO2 emissions are driving climate change, and it is something else that has been wreaking all that havoc with climates.

His assertion that Al Gore is unwilling to debate and justify himself to an influential Australian Senator, and a similar allegation against M/s Wong, and her two key advisors, who seem to have shifted camp from measuring atmospheric temperature, where at least we the humans meet the elements, most of the time, to measuring sea temperatures, where we are aliens in a foreign environment. Could Senator Fielding be right

Would you even care what Fielding has to say if he didn't share your superstitious beliefs?

Definitely not!

His graph is unrepresentative of CLIMATE trends. His whole approach merely shows he is out of his depth.
As Suggested before he ins an example of why we need an aptitude test for politician.
I have no problem with those competent challenging data sets but it does demand that real knowledge and understanding of ALL the issues involved.
e.g. until last night how many people understood that the threat posed by Luna dust is dependent on the time of the Luna day?
Most would would have intuitively said "dust is dust" it is either a problem or it's not. My point is the same with Climate change it's more complex than we the 'sound bite' informed would think. The idea that Fielding without the prerequisite skills could out guess those who have is 'bum' generated reasoning (just because he sits on parliamentary leather he somehow absorbed the superior wisdom is absurdity on amphetamines.

Could Senator Fielding be disingenuous?

Claiming he is seeking understanding of the reasons given for climate change, Senator Fielding travels to the USA, does he seek scientists actively engaged in the study of the planet? No. He goes to a conference presented by the Heartland Institute, the same institute that argues smoking tobacco is harmless , when I am sure that NASA would've been happy to discuss climatology with him.

Then upon return to Australia, still on his "quest for the truth about climate change", does he seek audience with the B.O.M. or C.S.I.R.O.? Again no, he chats to Penny Wong, no aspersions on MS Wong, but she is not a climatologist, although she was accompanied by Penny Sacket Australia's chief scientist, but Fielding claims they were unable to answer his questions. I posit that Senator Fielding was unable to understand their answers. Finally he meets with Al Gore, while I happen to agree with Mr Gore environmental concerns, I would not seek him out for an in depth analysis on climate.

Senator Fielding, this is just a suggestion, but if you are sincere about discussing climate, TRY A CLIMATOLOGIST for F$cks sake!

It is amazing how people resort to a personal attach on another when they don’t want to face reality. The reality is irrespective of whatever religious beliefs Steve Fielding may have he is an engineer. Engineers look at evidence and when an engineer makes a mistake, people die.

The book State of Fear should be read by all converted Green Religion fanatics, who have been attracted to Green Politics, by the vacuum left by irrelevant teachings in the mainstream churches. It is written by the late Michael Crichton, a former Medical Doctor, highly educated in science, and if you can look past the violent bits at the scientific analysis that goes on in the book, in respect of the basis of climate change, and how lawyers manipulate figures to suit the case they are prosecuting.

Penny Wong is a lawyer. Steve Fielding is an Engineer. Peter Garret is a lawyer, and like all lawyers prosecuting a case, they have found expert witnesses to push their particular wheelbarrow. When an engineer seeks to cross examine the expert witnesses presented by Penny Wong, and Peter Garret including Al Gore, and presents concrete credible evidence in the form of a graph, that can be backed up in Sydney today simply by stepping outside and freezing, it is time the professional lawyers started to produce concrete evidence, and not just rhetoric.

Add to that the fact that State of Fear in Australia is fiction, because we do not have as of right jury trials, so the lawyers tell us, as the United States does, and the scenario proposed by Michael Crighton, that climate change be tried on indictment in a court of law, cannot happen in Australia in 2009.

In 1987, in far North Tropical Queensland, at Mareeba just west of Cairns, where it is mostly very tropical, there were ten consecutive days of seven below zero frosts. Everything was frozen to a crisp. No Coffee in low lying areas survived, all paw paw trees were killed, all banana trees, mango trees were pruned but not killed and yielded no fruit. Warming maybe

Peter

You draw an analogy to a court of law then reference a science fiction book?

You should understand (maybe Fielding doesn't) that science is about weight of evidence ... it is not about guilty or innocent, as your analogy implies.