Janet Albrechtsen (writing in The Australian, of course) is asked a question by her teenage daughters:

Emails started arriving telling me about a speech given by Christopher Monckton, a former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, at Bethel University in St Paul, Minnesota, on October 14. Monckton talked about something that no one has talked about in the lead-up to Copenhagen: the text of the draft Copenhagen treaty.

You can read a transcript of Monckton’s claims here. Monckton reckons that the environmentalists “are about to impose a communist world government on the world”. (As opposed to imposing a communist world government on just one country, I suppose.)

Even after Monckton’s speech, most of the media has duly ignored the substance of what he said. You don’t need me to find his St Paul address on YouTube. Interviewed on Monday morning by Alan Jones on Sydney radio station 2GB, Monckton warned that the aim of the Copenhagen draft treaty was to set up a transnational government on a scale the world has never before seen. Listening to the interview, my teenage daughters asked me whether this was true.

So naturally Albrechtsen did some research and discovered that the PolitiFact Truth-o-Meter judged Monckton’s claims to be “pants on fire” dishonest and that Monckton’s conspiracy-finding skills are better than his reading skills. Alex Koppelman writes:

Problem is, Monckton’s reading of the proposed framework for negotiation — hardly a completed treaty — was woefully inaccurate. And that’s a nice way of putting it. The document clearly does nothing whatsoever to promote any sort of world government, and indeed, it refers to the efforts of national governments repeatedly.

Here’s the sole evidence in the framework for Monckton’s claim:

The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:

(a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.

(The COP to which that language refers is the Conference of the Parties, which the official UN Web site explains as, “the ‘supreme body’ of the Convention, that is, its highest decision-making authority. It is an association of all the countries that are Parties to the Convention … [and] is responsible for keeping international efforts to address climate change on track.”)

Unfortunately for Monckton and those who’ve fallen for what he said without doing some rudimentary checking of the document’s language, there’s more than one meaning of the word “government.” There’s the conventional definition, the one he used, and then there’s this one, which is very clearly the one intended in this case: “direction; control; management; rule: the government of one’s conduct.”

Albrechtsen reassured her daughters and wrote a column debunking Monckton’s nutty conspiracy theories. Ha ha, just kidding. Albrechtsen decided to check it out herself. She has, after all, a doctorate in law from Sydney University.


So I read the draft treaty. The word government appears on page 18.

And that, for Albrechtsen, settled it. The rest of her column is devoted to reporting Monckton’s conspiracy theories.

Monckton says the drafters want this new world government to have control over once free markets: the financial and trading markets of nation-states. “The sheer ambition of this new world government is enormous right from the start; that’s even before it starts accreting powers to itself in the way that these entities inevitably always do,” he says. …

Monckton’s warning to Americans that “in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your President will sign your freedom, your democracy and your prosperity away forever” is colourful. But no more colourful than the language used by those who preach about the perils of climate change and the virtues of a hard-hitting Copenhagen treaty. …

why has our government failed to explain the possible text of a treaty it wants Australia to sign? … So why the silence? Are they hiding the details of this deal from us because most of the polls now suggest that action on climate change is becoming politically unpalatable? … And what explains the media’s failure to report and analyse the only source document that offers any idea of what may happen in Copenhagen? Ignorance? Laziness?

The UN’s black helicopters, I would think. If we don’t hear from Albrechtsen again, you’ll know why.

Comments

  1. #1 el gordo
    November 11, 2009

    Population control worked remarkably well in China, but Oz isn’t a dictatorship. That’s why it’s bipartisan, because its politically unpalatable.

  2. #2 Anonymous
    November 11, 2009

    baby bonus introduced by the previous government. This policy is bipartisan

    el gordo:

    That’s why it’s bipartisan, because its politically unpalatable

    Gee I wonder how governments survived before they introduced the baby bonus.

    I was talking about the baby bonus, idiot.

  3. #3 Chris O'Neill
    November 11, 2009

    That last anonymous was me.

  4. #4 el gordo
    November 11, 2009

    Wait a minute. How can you be two people at the same time? Are you really Tim’s alter ego?

    Baby bonuses go back a long way, to the beginning of the previous century. It is always popular and bipartisan.

  5. #5 Chris O'Neill
    November 12, 2009

    This policy (the baby bonus) is bipartisan so the present government is to blame for its perpetuation.

    Actually, the baby bonus won’t be bipartisan because the Labor party says it will remove it:

    ‘Last night at North Melbourne Library, Federal Government backbencher Kelvin Thomson launched a 14-point plan to contain Australia’s ”runaway population”.

    His plan included winding back Australia’s annual immigration program to 70,000, abolishing the baby bonus, and restricting family benefits for third and subsequent children.’

    At least not every politician in the major parties has a mind taken over by ideology.

  6. #6 Chris O'Neill
    November 12, 2009

    el gordo:

    Baby bonuses go back a long way

    The Baby Bonus (a big, one-off payment at birth) only began in 2003 or 2004 at $3000 and later ramped-up to $5000.

  7. #7 Dave Andrews
    November 12, 2009

    Chris O’Neill,

    Ehrlich predicted massive starvation by the 1980’s. It didn’t happen, largely through the ,nowadays, unsung efforts of Norman Baulogh.

    He’s also made comments that cheap,abundant, energy would be equivalent to giving an idiot child a machine gun. And that economic growth is a disease. (Funny that he coulnd’t also see that economic growth and other developments would avert the starvation catastophy that he predicted)

    But the most amazing thing is, despite being totally wrong in what he predicted, he has been allowed to continue an academic career in a top US university ever since! Seems academics are not held to the same standards as the rest of us,

  8. #8 dhogaza
    November 12, 2009

    Ehrlich predicted massive starvation by the 1980’s. It didn’t happen, largely through the ,nowadays, unsung efforts of Norman Baulogh.

    (Funny that he coulnd’t also see that economic growth …

    Self-contradict much?

  9. #9 Chris O'Neill
    November 12, 2009

    Dave Andrews:

    Ehrlich predicted massive starvation by the 1980’s. It didn’t happen, largely through the ,nowadays, unsung efforts of Norman Baulogh.

    I don’t know what his arguments were, as opposed to the assertions, but the argument that there are too many rich babies because of the CO2 problem stands without assertions from Ehrlich.

  10. #10 Dave Andrews
    November 13, 2009

    Chris O’Neill,

    Help me here. Are you saying that you want there to be fewer ‘rich babies’, bearing in mind that birth rates in the developed world have already dropped significantly over the last 40 years or so?

    So how do you propose to achieve this further decline in ‘rich babies’ to help your supposed CO2 problem?

  11. #11 Chris O'Neill
    November 13, 2009

    Dave Andrews:

    So how do you propose to achieve this further decline in ‘rich babies’ to help your supposed CO2 problem?

    Haven’t you been paying attention? I said:

    Of course, Australia is doing the exact opposite with its stupid, ideologically motivated baby bonus introduced by the previous government.

    i.e. get rid of the Baby Bonus for a start which, thankfully, at least part of the Labor Party thinks is a good idea.

    By the way, birth rates in Australia have started increasing again, partly due to the Baby Bonus.

  12. #12 William Wallace
    November 25, 2009

    Hmn. Here is a snippet from a CRU email:

    There is a growing body of opinion that in order to mitigate climate change, or even to adapt to it, significant changes in current patterns of consumption, and therefore lifestyle, are necessary.

    Sounds like science to me. Political science. Or just politics. And not Laissez-faire, but rather, command and control.

    I wonder why people think so many climate alarmists are communists.

  13. #13 John
    November 29, 2009

    interesting article and analysis, however because of the vagueness of item (a) one can interpret as one likes, so too a government bureaucrat and politician.

    (a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.

  14. #14 Bernard J.
    November 29, 2009

    Yikes!

    [Bray-fart](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/janet_albrechtsen_warns_that_a.php#comment-2101238) is a growther.

    Why am I not surprised…?

  15. #15 Janet Akerman
    December 1, 2009

    Is it too late for irony?

    In [Crikey today](http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/12/01/a-mutiny-in-the-liberal-partyroom/):

    >*Janet Albrechtsen, Columnist, The Australian, writes: Re. “Mungo: why Turnbull is an uncomfortable fit” (yesterday). What a shame that Mungo MacCallum did not bother to ring me to check his latest wacky, unprofessional story.*

    >*[...] I appreciate the facts are boring but please try to keep your readers informed of the truth nonetheless.*

  16. #16 twawki
    December 15, 2009

    So the biggest tax in the history of mankind, based on junk science that will regulate everything we do by a non elected group is not communism!

  17. #17 Bud
    December 15, 2009

    Hehe, followed to twawki’s blog, noticed a huge number of links to “skeptic” sites and articles, from Morano to Monckton. Oh, and under “climate”, a link to [here](http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/).

    Yay for Poe’s Law!

Current ye@r *