Barack Obama attended last week’s United Nations climate change conference. It would be odd if he didn’t – it was hosted in New York this year.

But many world leaders didn’t bother. China, India, Germany, Russia – some of the world’s largest economies, and largest emitters of carbon dioxide – just couldn’t be bothered.

Instead, celebrity spokesmodels took their place, actors like Leonardo DiCaprio and Mark Ruffalo. They’re probably more interesting to the media anyways.

But all the celebrities and PR men in the world can’t hide a fact that the United Nations itself acknowledges: there just hasn’t been any measurable global warming since 1998.

The UN has a $100 word for that -- a “hiatus.” Like a recess, or vacation. As in, it hasn’t happened since the 1990s, but it will be back for sure. Any moment now.

Normally people, if they were campaigning to end something and it ended, would declare victory, have a celebration and move on.

But you don’t understand the UN. To declare victory against global warming would mean that they would have to find new jobs.

No more annual conventions in beautiful cities like New York, Bali, Marrakesh and Cancun. No more important meetings in five-star hotels. No more annual reunions with friends, paid for by taxpayers.

And, most importantly, no more cosmic excuses for tax increases and government regulations.

That’s why the UN – and their chorus in professional environmental groups and the mainstream media – have changed the terms. First it was global warming. Then climate change. Now it’s “climate disruption.” None of it is true – there are fewer tornadoes or hurricanes or sweltering days now than ever. Ice levels in the Arctic and Antarctic are firmly within normal bandwiths.

But it’s all about keeping the PR pressure on.

For what? What’s the plan from New York?

A position paper from China, leaked to Fox News, has some clues. China is now the world’s largest carbon user and emitter – twice as much as the United States does. Which makes sense – carbon is the stuff of life, and China is the country with the most lives in it. They all need electricity and transportation and industrialization. That’s why they’re building two coal-fired power plants a week.

There is no chance that China will reduce its carbon emissions. That would be tantamount to imperialism – the rich, industrialized West telling China that it can’t be rich and industrialized, too. Actually it’s more than that: China is the factory of the West. Look at everything in Walmart or Toys R Us – that pollution in China? That’s us outsourcing our emissions to them.

Ironically, China has far worse pollution problems than colourless, odourless, harmless carbon dioxide. Its air, land and water really are polluted. But you don’t have five-star celebrity reunions about that.

So if China will not tackle real pollution, and if it won’t tackle pretend pollution – namely carbon dioxide -- what does its position paper call for?

That’s the scoop. They’re happy to reduce their carbon emissions – for a price. And that price is $100 billion a year, from the United States, Canada and Europe, paid into a UN fund to be redistributed to China and other beneficiaries.

One hundred billion dollars a year.

And that’s not all: Western countries must agree to give up intellectual property rights. As in patents. China is engaged in massive industrial sabotage, trying to steal the West’s commercial secrets on everything from cellphones to Hollywood. China – in the name of global warming – simply wants the West to give them that. For free.

In the name of “climate change,” you see.

Can you blame them?

Western politicians want to tax carbon, to save the planet. Taxing carbon won’t save the planet. It’s an excuse that low-information celebrities seem to buy, though.

So if Leonardo DiCaprio will go for that, maybe he’ll go for a $100 billion/year gift to China, too?

I mean, it couldn’t hurt to ask for, right?