The treehuggers have been busy trying to get Prime Minister Stephen Harper to include the ubiquitous “climate change” — otherwise known as Global Warming except when it’s inconvenient — on the G8 and G20 economic summits timetables. At first, the Conservative leader was standoffish about the idea, but he has apparently “warmed” up to the idea.

Despite more important issues to discuss, like the fact that Europe is falling apart while France and Germany pay the equivalent of war reparations to try and save Spain, Greece, Portugal and Ireland from economic ruin, the world wants to talk about melting glaciers and hurricanes.

Last month it was filthy Mexico that came calling to lecture us about the importance of Canadian leadership on global warming. Which was sort of like getting a lecture on virtue from a call girl.

Well, the lecturing must have worked, because the government has capitulated, and put climate change on the G8 and G20 agendas.

“We anticipate that climate change will come up, in fact, at both summits,” Andrew MacDougall said.

“Actually, the prime minister was on (the telephone) with Chancellor (Angela) Merkel this morning of Germany and they discussed the fact that this issue, climate change, will be raised at both summits.”

So not only will we be spending $1 billion on security for this dog-and-pony show [or $930 million as the case may be], but we’ll be putting climate change on the agenda, a time and money waster that Copenhagen proved is second to none.

Has nobody read the memo? Are we still going on about this 2007 Nobel winning fad?

This is the end of the world as we know it. Every 100 million years, a rock the size of a small asteroid slams into the Earth, causing global earthquakes, one-kilometre high tsunamis, and global extinction.

But man-made climate change? Not likely.

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is now widely believed to have deliberately misled the global public into believing that there was a consensus among thousands of scientists with peer-reviewed research and irrefutable, “settled” science. According to Mike Hulme, an IPCC insider and whistleblower, the real number of scientists in the infamous “consensus” was a few dozen experts.

“Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous,” the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered “the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.”

Right. But let’s not allow evidence of scientific tampering for the manipulation of the global political agenda to at all dissuade the G8/20 discussions of how driving to work causes hurricanes in Malaysia.