PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd, the man who said he would never “knowingly” tell a lie, should begin the new Parliamentary session Tuesday with a few admissions of deceit.
His massively exaggerated claims of catastrophic climate change caused by human activity have been thoroughly rejected by the UK chief scientist, John Beddington. Even Australia’s chief scientist, Penny Sackett, has been unable to provide any evidence to support her wild December claim that there are about five years to avoid dangerous climate change damage.
Both scientific chiefs are now calling for absolute openness and rigour in the presentation of climate science evidence. Professor Beddington says scientists should be more open about the uncertainty of predicting the rate of climate change but has he told his Australian counterpart, Professor Sackett?
This is scientific backdown with a capital “B”.
Before the Copenhagen fiasco, Mr Rudd was certain that human-induced climate change was the greatest moral challenge of our times. Now he is mute on the topic.
So much for the need for the emissions trading legislation he plans to re-introduce this week. So much for his often-proclaimed decisiveness. So much for the need for certainty.
The Himalayan glaciers may not be melting, as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Mr Rudd falsely claimed, but the UN’s credibility, and that of Rudd and his Climate Change Minister Penny Wong, has evaporated.
In Britain, the Information Commissioner’s Office has found the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit broke the Freedom of Information law throughout 2007 and 2008. The unit was one of the principal sources the IPCC, the Australian Government and CSIRO has relied upon for its human-induced global warming propaganda.
Little wonder that climate change scientists on both sides of the debate are going back to the original data to try and find material that has not been tampered with.
Of course, Mr Rudd was such a proponent of man-made global warming that he gave $1 million late last year to the Tata Energy Research Institute. This is the Indian organisation run by the chairman of the IPCC, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, who was recently forced to admit that the IPCC claim in its 2007 report that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 had no scientific basis, and its inclusion in the report reflected a “poor application” of IPCC procedures.
In fact, they represented worse than a “poor application” of procedures; they represented zero application of anything but a desire to present propaganda on the behalf of governments pushing to impose a new global body on nations participating in the Copenhagen conference that would oversee wealth redistribution and enforce punitive carbon emission levels on the wealthier nations.
It’s all there in copies of the draft agreement Australia had a hand in preparing before the conference and can now be found with a couple of mouse clicks on the internet.
Dr Pachauri has his fingers in many odious pies, due to the expanding worldwide business connections he’s made since becoming chairman of the IPCC. He is now a very wealthy man. Could Mr Rudd explain why it was necessary to present this individual with $1 million of Australian taxpayers’ funds without any justification or accountability?
As the Wall Street Journal sagely observed last week, while the harm from global warming is speculative, the harm from global warmists is real.
In the two years Mr Rudd has been in office, he has shown no skill in any area (discounting his co-authorship of a children’s book about his dog and his cat) beyond giving away the wealth of the nation.
He rapidly went through the surplus that was painstakingly amassed by the previous Howard-Costello government. Then he started to spend funds he didn’t have to protect the nation from the fallout of the global fiscal collapse. The problem was that, despite his claims, the collapse was not global. Australia came through virtually unscathed because of the strength of financial regulation brought in by the Howard-Costello and the Hawke-Keating governments and the rapacious demand for commodities from the growth markets of Asia.
It is increasingly obvious that Mr Rudd is not a diplomat’s bootlace, as our foreign relations are at their lowest ebb in decades.
Nor does he understand numbers. He doesn’t even know how many Australians there are, selling the population short by one million when he told The 7.30 Report on Thursday there were 21 million of us.
As for finances, he is now going to give $100 million to Afghanistan, with $25 million earmarked for the Taliban. Should our troops there be writing cheques or firing bullets?
All of these are serious issues but in the lead-up to this week’s parliamentary session, the Labor Government, led by Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard, has chosen to focus on the sex lives of teenage girls.
The new Opposition leader Tony Abbott has a smorgasbord of issues with which to confront the Rudd Government, which is a master of spin and obfuscation. Like a good editor, Abbott and his team must cut through the verbiage.
It is important he does not get distracted by the frippery with which elements of the media are obsessed, but concentrates on the matters that are important to Australians.