UN’s dead deadline exposes Rudd scam
Piers Akerman
Sunday Telegraph
Sunday, January 24, 2010 at 12:51am
THE UN has dumped the deadline to tackle climate change, leaving Kevin Rudd isolated in his view that “to delay any longer would be reckless and irresponsible for our economy and our environment”.
Rudd made that dire pronouncement at the National Press Club just over a year ago, in December 2008, when he, former US vice-president Al Gore and an assortment of others were hell-bent on introducing the greatest wealth redistribution scheme the world had ever seen.
Beijings man on the ground in Australia,Australian PM Mr Kevin Rudd aka. Lu Kewan.
Now, even the UN has realised that the scam has been exposed and that the support base for its massive global swindle has melted more rapidly than any Himalayan glacier.
The Copenhagen Conference may have been as chaotic as an inner-urban ALP branch meeting, but the fallout has been devastating.
The only firm agreement for which there was general support among the freeloading nations present was to set a deadline of the end of this month for the first part of the ongoing process to deal with anthropogenic global warming.
Now the UN has waived that deadline.
Those present had agreed to declare their emission reduction targets, with developing nations stating the level of cuts they intended to make by 2020 and developing nations outlining their plans to curb emissions growth.
Now, Yvo de Boer, the UN’s chief climate change official, has admitted the deadline has been voided.
“By (the end of) January, countries will have the opportunity to indicate if they want to be associated with the accord,” he said. “(Governments could) indicate by the deadline, or they could also indicate later.”
“You could describe it as a soft deadline. There is nothing deadly about it. If (countries) fail to meet it, they can still associate with the Copenhagen accord after.”
This is not a deadline, not even a soft deadline. It is a dead deadline, a non-deadline, a meaningless deadline. It is not a line in the sand, a line in the mud or a line in the air. It is a non-existent line.
But the Prime Minister is left with his September 2008 claim: “After a long period of inaction, we have drawn a line in the sand on climate change. We recognise it as the greatest economic, environmental and moral challenge of our time.”
The day after Rudd declared delay on action on global warming to be “irresponsible” and “reckless”, he told a press conference in Brisbane that Copenhagen was the “clear cut” destination point.
“The end point of that,” he said, “will decide whether or not as a world community we’re serious about the future of the planet.”
The world community, through the UN, has just sent him a message. It doesn’t think the future of the planet is in as serious a plight as he believes. It doesn’t think he is on the right page on global warming.
It has decided that Copenhagen and the hysterical approach to climate change promoted by Rudd and a few others bent on transferring the wealth of the Western nations to the developing world was an over-the-top solution to a problem that increasingly appears to have been based on phoney figures, manipulated data and dodgy science.
US President Barack Obama had already signalled that he would not be pushing for any drastic measures before he was given a drubbing in Massachusetts on Tuesday.
The vote that saw the Democrats lose the Senate seat held by John F.Kennedy and his brother Ted for nearly 50 years was seen by some as a referendum on Obama’s crippled healthcare program.
But that was not the only issue that drove voters to the polls in record numbers.
Many were objecting to every aspect of the Obama approach to politics, including his embrace of multilateral forums such as the UN and its policies on matters such as global warming.
They would also be aware that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN body responsible for the apocalyptic climate predictions, has been caught out making unscientific forecasts in papers distributed for maximum political effect.
Dr Chris Landsea, a climate specialist dealing with hurricanes who quit the IPCC in disgust at the misrepresentation of scientific data five years ago, sounded the alarm then but was ignored as the IPCC promoted a false picture of increasing hurricane and cyclone activity.
Last week, it was revealed that the IPCC had also relied on unscientific claims of Himalayan glacial melts to make its case.
Rudd and Climate Change Minister Penny Wong constantly cited the IPCC as the source of their wild claims about increasing extreme weather events.
The IPCC said the prediction on glacial melt in its landmark 2007 report was “poorly substantiated” and resulted from a lapse in standards.
Rudd and Wong cannot claim the same excuse. They bought the whole argument and branded those who challenged them “deniers”.
Apart from owing thousands of well-meaning sceptics an apology, Rudd must also explain why the UN is walking away from him and the issue he claims is “the great moral, economic and environmental challenge of our age”.
He has been back from holiday for a week and made a series of embarrassingly ignorant speeches on the economy in which he has shown he has no grasp of economics.
And he has not addressed the UN’s retreat from Copenhagen and the failure of his scaremongering on global warming.
Perhaps his claims about global destruction were merely first drafts of his next book for children. The UN is certainly treating them as such.
