Janet Albrechtsen, Lord Monckton, and the international conspiracy deserving the highest levels of scepticism rolls on ...

(Above: Lord Monckton).

There's nothing like a lover's spat to produce a sonorous squawking in the deeper parts of loon pond.

Was it only last October - admittedly in a different decade - that Janet Albrechtsen was scribbling Beware the UN's Copenhagen plot, and finding herself deeply in the intellectual embrace of Lord Monckton. Thoughtfully she guided us to Monckton and his cries of alarm about the Copenhagen conspiracy:

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.

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.

Well when confronted with such an innocent, yearning quest for truth from teenage daughters, what's a commentariat columnist to do? Of course ... expose the truth ...

So I read the draft treaty. The word government appears on page 18. Monckton says: "This is the first time I've ever seen any transnational treaty referring to a new body to be set up under that treaty as a government. But it's the powers that are going to be given to this entirely unelected government that are so frightening."

Monckton became aware of the extraordinary powers to be vested in this new world government only when a friend of his found an obscure UN website and hacked his way through several layers of complications before coming across a document that isn't even called the draft treaty. It's called a "note by the secretariat". The moment he saw it, he went public and said: "Look, this is an outrage ... they have kept the sheer scope of this treaty quiet."

Monckton says the aim of this new government is to have power to directly intervene in the financial, economic, tax and environmental affairs of all the nations that sign the Copenhagen treaty.

Oh yes, back then it was Monckton this and Monckton that and Monckton says ... I guess before the rabble that was Copenhagen showed that it was just another nutty conspiracy theory.

Back then Tim Lambert had a little fun at Albrechtsen's expense in Janet Albrechtsen warns that Copenhagen will impose a communist world government:

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.

Albrechtsen wasn't content to keep the news to The Australian or herself, as she penned Has Anyone Read the Copenhagen Agreement? U.N. plans for a new 'government' are scary for The Wall Street Journal.

Sure it's just a re-hash, but she knows how to work the room:

Ask yourself this question: Given that our political leaders spend hundreds of hours talking about climate change and the need for a global consensus in Copenhagen, why have none of them talked openly about the details of this draft climate-change treaty? After all, the final treaty will bind signatories for years to come. What exactly are they hiding? Thanks to Lord Monckton we now know something of their plans.

Janos Pasztor, director of the Secretary-General's Climate Change Support Team, told reporters in New York Monday that with the U.S. Congress yet to pass a climate-change bill, a global climate-change treaty is now an unlikely outcome in Copenhagen. Let's hope he is right. And thank you, America.

Oh yes, thanks Lord Monckton, thank you America, I loves youse all. As Lambert noted in response to her deepest questions and paranoid fears:

... 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.

Ah, but we have heard from Albrechtsen again, and on the subject of Monckton no less, but this time the header is Heated moments mar Monckton.

Oh too cruel, and just in time for Monckton's tour of the antipodes, the scales have fallen from Monckton's eyes. Well it seems some of the scales:

So what will Christopher Monckton bring to this exasperating state of affairs? The former adviser to Margaret Thatcher is in Australia next week, speaking about the flaws of the push for a global solution to global warming. Last year, Monckton blew the whistle on a draft Copenhagen treaty that political leaders seemed keen to keep away from the prying eyes of taxpayers, who will fund the grand promises.

While nothing concrete came out of Copenhagen, the push for global commitments and a foreign aid bonanza continues. And in this respect, Monckton has plenty more to say. He has written to the Prime Minister outlining legitimate concerns that billions of dollars will be wasted on a problem that does not exist.

Nothing concrete came out of Copenhagen? Not even world government, or the thousand year reign of Satan? How disappointing, especially to those fair and balanced truth seekers in the middle who just want the truth:

And in between is a far larger group of people, those who are open-minded and genuinely sceptical, who are trying to understand the debate as best they can. Yet frustration only grows at the extremism on both sides.

But still there's a deep yearning in Albrechtsen:

When Monckton talks about the science he is powerful.

Oh yes, he can demolish well-meaning people:

Watch on YouTube his kerb-side interview of a well-meaning Greenpeace follower on the streets of Copenhagen last month. With detailed data behind him, he asks whether she is aware that there has been no statistically significant change in temperatures for 15 years. No, she is not. Whether she is aware that there has in fact been global cooling in the past nine years? No, she is not. Whether she is aware that there has been virtually no change to the amount of sea ice? No, she does not. Whether, given her lack of knowledge about these facts, she is driven by faith, not facts. Yes, she is driven by faith, she says.

Never mind what the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, that lickspittle lackey of the UN, world government, black helicopters and the great global conspiracy, says about last year being the second hottest year ever in the hottest decade ever in Australia since records began (the warmest being 2005). Don't believe me, read the distortions of the ABM published by the minions of the Murdoch press in 2009: The second hottest year on record.

Never mind, the sight of Monckton heading the Greenpeace faithful just doesn't do it for Albrechtsen any more, not even his fact-based questions, which don't seem to require fact-based answers, because let's face it, the facts are part of a vast international conspiracy:

To those with an open mind, Monckton's fact-based questions demand answers from our political leaders. To this end, he will impress his Australian audience over the next few days. Unfortunately, while Monckton has mastered the best arts of persuasion, he also succumbs to the worst of them when he engages in his made-for-the-stage histrionics. In Copenhagen, when a group of young activists interrupted a meeting, he berated them as Nazis and Hitler Youth.

And what's worse, he refused to make a contribution to the Godwin's Law swear jar. Not even a nickel or a dime! Whereas here at loon pond we have a monthly subscription.

Elsewhere he has called on people to rise up and fight off a "bureaucratic communistic world government monster". This extremist language damages his credibility. More important, it damages the debate. You start to look like a crank when you describe your opponents as Nazis and communists. You can see how it happens. Talking to a roomful of cheering fellow travellers, the temptation is to hit the high gear of hyperbole. But if your aim is to persuade those with an open mind, this kind of talk will only turn people away. Warning people about the genuine threat to national sovereignty from a centralised global-warming bureaucracy is one thing. Talking about a new front of communists marching your way is another. It sounds like an overzealous warrior fighting an old battle.

Or perhaps it even sounds like Albrechtsen in October? When she was scribbling like an overzealous warrior fighting a battle she's been fighting for years. And still is:

The debate about global warming is as much a political debate as it is about the science. Writing in Macleans earlier this month, Andrew Coyne highlighted the errors made by the global warmists who deride their opponents. "If your desire is to persuade the unpersuaded among the general public, the very worst way to go about it is to advertise your bottomless contempt for your adversaries. That the IPCC scientists reacted in this way shows how unprepared they were, for all their activist enthusiasm, to enter the political arena."

Or to deal with the sharp-edged demolition job mounted by the likes of Albrechtsen on a regular basis, as she worshipped at the shrine of Ian Plimer and others.

Hey ho nonny no, on we go:

The great shame is that those on the other side of the debate are making precisely the same error. And that is why Monckton's fact-based concerns are left unaddressed by our political leaders. They have sidelined him from debate. Kevin Rudd has not responded to his letter. Tony Abbott will not meet him. Neither should he. There is no political gain for the Opposition Leader in doing so.

Oh no, fact-based concerns, only to be sidelined in the debate, and no one willing to meet him, and even Albrechtsen talking about his histrionics and extremist language and damaged credibility and damaged debate. Not even a true believer like Tony Abbott now dares meet him. And just when the climate change deniers were winning!

And the reason is clear enough. Inflationary language deflates an argument. Moreover, Monckton is making the worst political error at the worst possible time, right when this debate is slipping from the control of those determined to punish countries for their carbon emissions. Even The Guardian's resident alarmist George Monbiot admitted last November, "There is no point in denying it: we're losing. Climate change denial is spreading like a contagious disease."

Oh steady on Monbiot, that's twenty dollars in the Contagious Diseases Swear Jar please:

It's neither denial nor a disease, of course. Just healthy scepticism.

Because of course Albrechtsen remains a true believer. She's just a tad unhappy that Monckton's talk of conspiracies and Nazis and communists and world government might get in the road of ultimate victory.

Because you see as usual scepticism is just another word for saying it ain't true:

And it's growing in all the right directions for all the right reasons. Scepticism about the science: the revelation that scientists massaged data to suit their case has damaged the public's trust in the scientific community. Scepticism about the costs: after Copenhagen, we now know more about the grab for a new gravy train of foreign aid from developed nations set to flow to developing countries under the cloak of climate change. Scepticism about the government: the Rudd government will come under increased pressure to explain its rush to implement an emissions trading system ahead of the rest of the world. And scepticism about the role of a campaigning media: even the BBC Trust has called for a review of the BBC's cheerleading coverage of climate change. What took it so long? Large sections of the Australian media are no less complicit in the same kind of climate change advocacy.

You know, back in the days when Albrechtsen was standing shoulder to shoulder with Monckton on the dangers of world government, she was at least being intellectually honest - because paranoid conspiracy theorists generally tend to believe that there is a conspiracy. But it's a bit rich to give Monckton a going over, a dusting up for his language, when Albrechtsen then cheerfully proceeds to rabbit on about a conspiracy amongst data-massing scientists, a conspiracy in the BBC about its cheerleading coverage of the issue, and 'scepticism' as a guise for attacks on costs, gravy trains, government, campaigning media and so on. The full panoply of Monckton paraphernalia with the attendant Lord tucked to one side so that Albrechtsen can deliver one final homily:

In 2010, healthy scepticism will continue to rise against the global warming alarmists. But only if those such as Monckton treat the public with respect by sticking to the facts and using measured language, not fanciful claims and name-calling.

Oh wordsmith heal thyself, oh black pot stop this unseemly assault on the blackness of the kettle. If 2010 sees Albrechtsen stick to the facts and use measured language, not fanciful claims and name-calling, what a dull old loon pond it would be.

Don't worry, never fear, Dame Slap will keep dishing out the paddy whacks, and what fun that poor old Monckton was the first to cop six of the best ....

(Below: beware resident alarmists and BBC cheerleaders and global warmists and campaigning media, Janet Albrechtsen has her eye on you, and she won't resort to fanciful claims or name-calling to win. Just the facts and measured language, and by the way have you heard how the warmistas tried to introduce world government at Copenhagen ...)