'What about my little mate?'

What an extraordinary fortnight - both around the world and here in Australia.

First we had the absurd sight of St Kevin trying his hardest to sound 'natural', and instead coming across like Chips Rafferty. You could taste the sawdust in the air at his press conferences.

Then we had one of the most incredible news-filled weeks that I can remember. Ruddwatch has been glued to the TV, radio and internet, watching for news about developments in Iran and North Korea.

At the same time, we had so much happening here. The complete and utter shambles that is the implementation of St Kevin's 'vision' for schools, as set out in the (I kid you not, this is it's name) Building the Education Revolution program. Angry emails and letters from school principals, P&C committees, even the education unions, complaining that it was a mess which was wasting literally billions of taxpayers' money. Much to the Haloed One's annoyance, the Oz has been chronicling it here. The sheer incompetence is jaw-dropping.

Yet again, Mr and Mrs Average are paying the price for Rudd's flippancy, and inability to concentrate hard enough on his work in order to solve small problems and iron out details. You can see him stamping his little pixie feet and shouting at his staff - 'Today, it has to be done today! Just do it! I don't care, just do it!'

You see - he really doesn't care about education. Just so long as the money gets dished out and he gets to look good. But what else did you expect from such a shallow man as St Kevin?

It's not just that the money is being spent on buildings that are not needed, at inflated prices, while buildings that are needed are not going up. It's that all this money could be being spent on teacher training and retention, or on new textbooks, or on subsidising useful things like music lessons, team sports and extra-curricular visits to other states and countries. Such a terrible shame for the kids, such a horrendous cost for the taxpayer.

Or even things that schools actually want and need. Apparently, while millions are being wasted on unneeded and unwanted buildings at some schools, others are being told that the hall or gym that they have waited for for years is at present unaffordable.

The government's response to criticism has been labelled by the Oz's Christian Kerr as a 'typhoon of unreason'. The best defence that they have of their program is that critics are unpatriotic.

That is pathetic. However, the award for pathetic behaviour goes to the PM for his performance in asking the principal of Holland Park State School, in Rudd's electorate, to write a letter praising the program, after the Oz had reported the principal as criticising the implementation of the program. If this doesn't scream 'style over substance' and shallowness, then I don't know what does.

On Tuesday we had the Senate's voting down of the appalling RuddBank idea. The Greens joined the Terminator's mob on the rather reasonable principle that those who are so redundant in business acumen that they have to go cap in hand to the government shouldn't be rewarded with million dollar salaries. Yet another occasion for Pixie to stamp his little feet and yell (no doubt Christian) obscenities at the nearest staffer.

Another story to emerge this week was Senator Steve Fielding's daring to hint that the heart-breakingly dishy ice queen, Climate Empress Wong, may be wearing no clothes. Buoyed by his trip to America for a conference given by scientifically endowed climate sceptics, Senator Fielding returned with three questions for Empress Wong. Here, I let Bob Carter et al., opponents of the 'Doomed Planet' hysteria, tell the story:

STEVE Fielding recently attended a climate change conference in Washington, DC. Listening to the papers presented, the Family First senator became puzzled that the scientific analyses they provided directly contradicted the reasons the Australian government had been giving as the justification for its emissions trading legislation.

Fielding heard leading atmospheric physicist Dick Lindzen, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, describe evidence that the warming effect of carbon dioxide was much overestimated by computer climate models and remark: "What we see, then, is that the very foundation of the issue of global warming is wrong.

"In a normal field, these results would pretty much wrap things up, but global warming-climate change has developed so much momentum that it has a life of its own quite removed from science."

Another scientist, astrophysicist Willie Soon, from the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, commented: "A magical CO2 knob for controlling weather and climate simply does not exist." Think about that for a moment with respect to our government's climate policy.

On his return to Canberra Fielding asked Climate Change Minister Penny Wong to answer three simple questions about the relationship between human carbon dioxide emissions and alleged dangerous global warming.

Fielding was seeking evidence, as opposed to unvalidated computer model projections, that human carbon dioxide emissions are driving dangerous global warming, to help him, and the public, assess whether cutting emissions would be a cost-effective environmental measure.

After all, the cost to Australian taxpayers of the planned emissions trading bill is about $4000 a family a year for a carbon dioxide tax of $30 a tonne. The estimated benefit of such a large tax increase is that it may perhaps prevent an unmeasurable one-ten-thousandth of a degree of global warming from occurring. Next year? No, by 2100.

The questions posed were:

* Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5percent since 1998 while global temperature cooled during the same period? If so, why did the temperature not increase, and how can human emissions be to blame for dangerous levels of warming?

* Is it the case that the rate and magnitude of warming between 1979 and 1998 (the late 20th-century phase of global warming) were not unusual as compared with warmings that have occurred earlier in the Earth's history? If the warming was not unusual, why is it perceived to have been caused by human CO2 emissions and, in any event, why is warming a problem if the Earth has experienced similar warmings in the past?

* Is it the case that all computer models projected a steady increase in temperature for the period 1990 to 2008, whereas in fact there were only eight years of warming followed by 10years of stasis and cooling? If so, why is it assumed that long-term climate projections by the same models are suitable as a basis for public policy-making?

As independent scientists attending the meeting, we found the minister's advisers unable, indeed in some part unwilling, to answer the questions.

We were told that the first question needed rephrasing because it did not take account of the global thermal balance and the fact much of the heat that drives the climate system is lodged in the ocean.

Que? What is it about "carbon dioxide has increased and temperature has decreased" that the minister's science advisers don't understand?

The second question was dismissed with the comment that climatic events that occurred in the distant geological past were not relevant to policy concerned with contemporary climate change. Try telling that to geologist Ian Plimer.

And regarding the accuracy of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's computer models, we were assured that better models were in the pipeline. So the minister's advisers apparently concede that the models that have guided preparation of the emissions trading scheme legislation are inadequate.

These are not adequate responses.

It was reported in the Business Age last July that the ministry of climate change's green paper on climate change, which was issued as a prelude to carbon dioxide taxation legislation, contained scientific errors and over-simplifications. Almost 12 months on, our experience confirms that the scientific advice Wong is receiving is inadequate to justify the exorbitantly costly upheaval of our society's energy usage that will be driven by the government's ETS legislation.

All Australians owe Fielding a vote of thanks for having had the political courage to ask in parliament where the climate empress's clothes have gone. Together with the senator, and the public, we await with interest any further answers to his questions that Wong's advisers may yet provide.

As usual, we will keep watching closely for signs that Climate Empress Wong has seen the error of her ways, and hoping that she decides to leave, irrevocably, the Dark Side of climate apocalypticism, to embrace RuddWatch - no, sorry, I got carried away, to embrace the healthy bright sunshine of enlightened scepticism. Penny, I don't mind that you come from Adelaide, I'll wait for you!

Then on Friday morning, as if a foretaste of what was to come later on that momentous day, the Oz reported on a Chinese academic's disembowelling of Rudd's execrable essay on neoliberalism, whatever that is (remember, if the Labor Party did it, then it's economic modernisation, whereas if John Howard or Maggie Thatcher did it, then it's neoliberalism. Confused? So is Kev). Rowan Callick reported thus:

KEVIN Rudd has been accused by a leading Chinese economist of being "either short of economic knowledge or misleading his readers" in his famous essay attacking neoliberalism [RuddWatch: I actually think he's both, but let that be for the moment].

In a scathing assessment, Xu Xaonian, economics professor at China Europe International Business School in Shanghai, lambasts the essay, now translated and published in China, as "shallow and crude".

Dr Xu says "Lu Kewen" - Mr Rudd's Chinese name - made a "big, big mistake" in forming his "confident opinions" based on "the observation that the crisis came as a result of neoliberalism and the absence of supervision".

Dr Xu, one of China's leading liberal economists, has savaged the Rudd essay in the weekly Chinese newspaper The Economic Observer after the Prime Minister's work was translated and reprinted in China's leading business magazine, Caijing.

Dr Xu, who has a doctorate from the University of California and was formerly managing director of the country's biggest investment bank, says it is not time to resurrect Keynesianism, as Mr Rudd proposes.

"Instead, it's time to announce Keynesianism's failure, time to announce the emperor Lord Keynes has no clothes."

He says the Prime Minister "has used electioneering-style tactics to brand neoliberalism as dogmatic, to paint a clownish portrait of it, seeking to pioneer popular antipathy to this artificial enemy, casting a moral verdict without seeming to care about truth or logic".

Dr Xu says: "Lu Kewen defined Alan Greenspan as a neoliberal, and claiming that his failure and that of the neoliberals is a failure of the market.

"Lu is either short of economic knowledge or is misleading his readers [RW: Both - he is guilty of both!]. Greenspan is a Keynesian, and a thoroughgoing one, not a neoliberal. Lu smartly transformed a failure of government into a failure of the market - a form of propaganda by him and his social democrat comrades which now looks as if it is working."

Dr Xu says that Mr Rudd "views himself as an heir of Franklin Roosevelt and Keynes - he wants to use expansionary financial policies to pull the economy out of recession".

"Instead, it will only add a fresh failure to the Keynesian list, while piling up votes, in the meantime, for the social democrats," he says. "Although filled with conclusions contrary to facts and unfounded policy prescriptions, it represents a popular post-downturn trend, especially because it comes from a country's prime minister."

Couldn't have said it better myself. Professor Xu is right on the money. He has marked St Kevin for the intellectual fraud and poseur that he is.

Then we have the spectacle of Sister Julia dismantling the Australian Building and Construction Commission, while the construction unions cry 'discrimination'! They just want the right to go on making a dishonest buck, after all - and Sister Julia is going to give them the means to do so.

Then, late on Friday night, while checking the internet news sites one last time before going home for the weekend, I saw that one Godwin Grech, Treasury official, narrowly avoided having a nervous breakdown before admitting that, although he could be mistaken, he was asked by Andrew Charlton - an economics adviser to Rudd and a man so girlie that he was struck dumb with terror by the Terminator's giving him some worldly advice the night before - to make sure that Kevin Rudd's mate, car dealer John Grant, be included in yet another of the government's 'cash for incompetents' schemes.

Now, I admit up front and openly that, at this point, the email sent by Charlton to Grech doesn't appear to exist. However, many emails between Grech and Brother Wayne's office, which Swan's adviser Andrew Thomas says were sent to Brother Wayne's fax machine, do exist, and testify to the Treasury's making extra efforts to get Kev Rudd's mate into the scheme.

So, we know that Kevin Rudd and John Grant are mates, that Grant didn't qualify for the scheme, and that someone put pressure on Treasury to bend the rules so as to get Grant into the scheme. We also know that St Kevin and Brother Wayne told parliament that they didn't know anything about this.

We can forget about Brother Wayne. He is now a walking political corpse. Let's focus on St Kevin.

There is no suggestion that Brother Wayne knew Grant. Grant's only link to Brother Wayne and the Treasury is through St Kevin. All the circumstantial evidence points to St Kevin asking Treasury, either directly or through Charlton, to do what it could to admit Grant access to the scheme's cash.

Godwin Grech says that this approach was made via email. This is where the story gets a bit weird.

All public service emails - ALL public service emails - are public documents, to be filed for a number of years before being destroyed. Even the ones where the Treasury officials arrange drinks after work, are kept on a computer disk, and then backed up to files, and then sent to the national archives.

If Charlton did send an email to Grech, where is it? Surely it should be on the email backup discs?

Also, the public service has since the year dot kept files, in which correspondence, minutes of meetings, minutes of phone calls and other documents can be kept for posterity, so that if anything goes wrong - and it usually does, as Grech is finding out - there is a record of exactly what happened, what was said, etc, for reference.

Where is the file? And why didn't Grech put the email on file?

Also, such a request - the Prime Minister asking for special treatment for a private citizen in a government program - would tend to immediately ring alarm bells in all but the most obtuse public servants. Why didn't Grech forward the emails to his superiors - nay, directly to Ken Henry! - so that they could see what was going on?

So something strange has happened. Either the backup system has broken down and Grech's filing practices are abominable (possible), or someone has nobbled the email records (possible, but not probable), or there was no email (highly probable).

But if so, then why did Grech risk both a nervous breakdown and being sent to a room with no windows, no computer and no phone on his desk for the remainder of his short Treasury career, in order to bring to light something which never happened? And why were the Labor senators and genuinely senior Treasury official David Martine so keen to prevent Grech from answering Senator Abetz's question about who asked him to do favours for Mr Grant?

Perhaps he just received a phone call from Charlton.

Let's go back to what we do know, and what makes sense: Treasury was asked to ensure that a Mr John Grant was given preferential access to public money. Treasury's efforts were monitored by the Treasurer, Wayne Swan. Mr Grant is a friend of the Prime Minister, Mr Kevin Rudd. Mr Rudd and Mr Swan have both said in Parliament that they have made no representations on behalf of Mr Grant. Lying to Parliament is a most serious offence, usually punished with the loss of one's place in the ministry.

Join the dots, readers.

I told you, a few weeks ago, after St Kevin's bizarre '300, no billions here' performance, that he had 'jumped the shark'. I had no idea that it would all begin unravelling so quickly for him. He has only been Prime Minister for 19 months. This is extraordinary.

My forecast that Rudd would preside over a one-term government was made with some confidence, but half in hope. I now think that it is a very strong possibility, and that he may not make the full term.

Time to get out the popcorn and settle into the beanbags - this is going to be fun.