That seems to be a rather ostrich like approach to what's supposed to be a rather big important issue - particularly one that could result in a rather large "climate change tax" scheme that's being voted on today. If they're wrong on the merits, then have it out, but the article only points out the growing skepticism within the scientific community for anthropogenic warming. So the question becomes more about what should/can we do about it since if it's going to cost the world that much in money surely we should have an expectation that these efforts will have an impact?
I'm not being an ostrich. I've just had enough of investigating many of these skeptics' claims only to find out that they hold little merit.
As for this opinion piece, another commentator has pointed out that the senator in question, Steve Fielding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Fielding) is a known skeptic (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=676593) but the article makes no mention of this. Instead it portrays him as a fence-sitting politician who has been let down by the Obama administration so he has "decided" to vote against his country's climate-change legislation. His decision was made well before his stunt of asking the Obama administration for advice.
