Once again, Janet Albrechtsen has written nonsense (http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/index.php/theaustralian/comments/beware_the_uns_copenhagen_plot), and, once again, it has been laughed at by everyone capable of independent fact-checking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2009/10/28/off-the-planet/)

Interesting line of attack, though: Copenhagen will usher in a “new world government”. Seriously? Since when has global government been on the radar for Australia’s alarmist Right?

This brand of hysteria is a uniquely American phenomenon. The U.S.A’s libertarian nuts believe the reptilian overlords will impose it in order to plant mind-control chips in us, while the evangelical Christian nuts believe a character from a teen novel will form a global dictatorship in prelude to the Rapture. So far, however, neither of these absurdities has been popular with Australian conservatives.

Albrechtsen writes to fools, but she is not one herself. Why, then, would she try to hang an argument on such a bizarre, alien, and easily-debunked conspiracy theory?

It may be a reaction to the industry lobby’s woefully unsuccessful war on science. Apart from a noisy minority that would believe in Santa if a Rio Tinto executive ordered, no-one is convinced that the world’s scientists are colluding to produce fake data and destroy the global economy for the glory of socialism.

Rather, the anti-science movement continues to back-pedal, and Albrechtsen may realise it will soon be buried under the weight of evidence and common sense, just as it was in the case of tobacco. Is she trying to retain relevance by herding the useful idiots into a new framework for undermining human progress?

Alternatively, perhaps the Murdoch press, and not just Albrechtsen, wants to move the climate change debate away from science - where the industry lobby is getting mauled - and onto quasi-religious territory where facts don’t matter so much.

It will be interesting to see how this develops. Albrechtsen wouldn’t try something so strange if she didn’t think it would be taken seriously by a decent portion of the paranoid Right. Keep an eye on The Australian for ominous warnings of a one world government. Can NewsCorp spin the pet issue of American schizophrenics into a front-page issue for Australian alarmists?

Most on the left assume that there is only right and left but to get to right or left you go through the point of balance, the true reading on the plumb line which they fail to see because they are real aginners

Sancho, I agree with you that this article is “alarmist”. It is curious though, that the climate change supporters don’t see themselves as “alarmist”, how odd.

What I got from this article was the fact that regardless of the aspirations of the “note to the secretariat’ is the existence of a set of expectations from negotiations and that these have not been part of the public debate until now. This was the whole point of the article.

Why would you not wish to hear what the Copenhagen Treaty seeks to achieve?

Albrechtsen is simply trying to make the most out of her final few days in journalism.

Once Rupert puts her behind his paywall, no-one will pay $0.02c to unlock her.

Hi doubting Thomases. This was started by Christopher Monckton, one of Margaret Thatchers legislation advisers. If you mock his politics, at least recognise his knowledge of legislation and its wording. Another expert was the late Sir Humphrey Appleby, but Christopher Monckton can be questionned. I did and his answer is in the vein of Janet's blog.
Want to look at para 38 of the Draft Treaty?
Go to http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=COP+15+Treaty and work it out for yourself. Then, perhaps you will query why neither Rudd, Wong nor Turnbull have told the public about this future for Australia.
Thank God for Barnaby Joyce.

Further to my previous, if you want to read the Draft COP 15 Treaty and have found it, don't restrict your reading to para 38. Go back to para 29 and read through it, ignoring the brackets and gathering the import of the legislation.
World Government means that many of our industries will have to cease and we will have to pay approximately four times the aid we currently pay to neighbours who warrant assistance.
I have given you the reference, now look it up and draw your own conclusions.
Then tell Janet that you were wrong!