When people face the fact that the Chinese are not going to reduce their emissions no matter what, a sense of reality will return to discussions on this subject. The media, however, is not interested in rational discussion, but rather in emotional allegations, sensation, doomsaying, and all the other old tricks that sell newspapers. Remember always that Australia doesn't matter, that 89% of the world population lives in the northern hemisphere, and that they generate 96% of the world's pollution. Note also that the media, like many political parties and religions, must make demands that cannot be satisfied.

How handy it is to have all-seeing seers like plerdsus to predict the future with absolute certainty. Who's gonna win the Ashes in 2012?

Blaming China is
a) hilarious: should smokers keep smoking until all other smokers quit first? Should burglars keep burgling till all other burglars quit? Should Aus keeping f**king the climate till all other countries tire of the same irresponsible game? Yes say the amoral economic fundamentalists in media and government.
& b) obscene: as it takes no account of the very much higher historic and current per capita emissions of Aus and other first world nations. Pointing to China is an intrinsically racist argument, presuming each Chinese has less right to emit than each Australian. Racism in RightThink? No, really?!?! Gosh, who'd a thunk it..

If Australians had a clue we'd realise China's emissions depend just a little bit on Australian coal, iron ore and gas exports. But we don't (have a clue).

In response to richard42's comments, I would direct him to http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/953353.stm where the notion of the Sun being the major cause of global warming is seriously questioned.

To me this argument is yet another distraction from the real issue... what are we going to do about our damaging impact on our planet? Whether we cause 70% or 30% is a moot point. It can not be debated though that we are having a significant impact on the flora, fauna and delicate balance of our ecosystems. We ignore this at our peril.

Regarding Frederic Jueneman's article, yes I would agree that carbon dioxide is an indicator (as well as part of the problem). It is an indicator of the way we are treating our environment and the unpredictable consequences of that.

Absolute scientific consensus on Global warming, my ass, Gecko et al. The only reason the climate wonkers continue to claim this absolute consensus is that it does not exist. It is like a child molester talking up the rights of children. Pure smoke screen and highly dishonest.

There is no such thing as "absolute consensus". Concensus means, 1; majority of opinion.
2; general agreement or concord; harmony.

There is consensus in the scientific community regarding global warming.

Alan Moran is paid (via the Institute for Public Affairs) by companies that will lose profits if Australia realises its arse is on fire and implements tight emissions caps & trading (preferably via tradeable energy quotas for all citizens).

What a coincidence that he floats a fantasy where Business decides what is best for all. Just like the coincidence of Gunns funding and prologging confabulations. Or WMC funding and pronuclear mendacity. Perhaps, like his collegues role in starving the Murray River of water http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institute_of_Public_Affairs, it will come back to haunt him. Luck for his kids, Moran is a fairly common name.