Perhaps the uncomfortable truth that no-one likes to admit is that many Asian countries have too great a population relative to their resource base. For example China's annual 2.5 billion tonne coal consumption is 10 times Australia's world leading exports. If as predicted that coal production cannot be sustained for much longer then China's economic boom may disappoint those with high expectations. Even in the west NGOs like the World Bank suggest a country like Bangladesh is 'entitled' to greater emissions if it wants to catch up. I'd ask why is Bangladesh 'entitled' to 150m population and not 15m perhaps more in line with its resources? Sea level rise, unstable rainfall patterns and depletion of all fossil fuels sooner than we expect is going to set off a huge international blame game.

I suspect you mean Man Made Climate Change reporting is inadequate, as opposed to Natural Climate Change reporting, the type that's been going on for billions of years. Not a lot of mileage or attention in reporting things are normal, climate change that is, and the natural cycle is continuing?

Is it fair to say that you're in the business of training folks to be able to alarm others more efficiently? So this is, like a sales pitch? You're complaining there is not enough hysteria, so more folks need to be trained in places where it is thin, so we should pay you to do it? Or do you want rational debate, I doubt it, you've already stated what you want reported. I'm probably going to be sprayed with sewerage now by some of the extreme folks who believe religously in the AGW thing.

I think we can always clean up our act somewhat and not pollute as much, which is what your example in China is about. But I don't buy into the AGW arguments, nor the hysterical or somewhat questionable manner (e.g. Al Gore's powerpoint film) in which it is portrayed. I saw all the previous scare's during the last 40 years, and have read about scares going back thousands of years - you know, back then, they stoned false prophets - that would make things a little more serious wouldn't it - if you were held to account for what you reported. If you weren't able to be objective and were part of the story, causing panic, would you agree to be accountable if what you're reporting is deemed later to be spurious and damaging?

rpg: "some of the extreme folks who believe religously in the AGW thing" [sic]

I don't labelling the following peak science organisations of the world as "extreme" and "religious" (the same sort of language used by the Flat Earth Society against mainstream science) lends much to your credibility:

NASA, CSIRO, The InterAcademy Council, the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States, National Research Council (US), European Science Foundation, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Federation of American Scientists, World Meteorological Organization, Royal Meteorological Society (UK), Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, International Union for Quaternary Research, Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, International Union of Geological Sciences, European Geosciences Union, Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences, Geological Society of America, American Geophysical Union, American Astronomical Society, American Institute of Physics, American Physical Society, American Chemical Society, Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia), Federal Climate Change Science Program (US), American Statistical Association, International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences, American Association of State Climatologists, The Network of African Science Academies, The Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies

I agree sams....AGW deniers will graps at any straw they can find, and casting doubt on the scientific community just because they don't agree with them, does a lot of harm to their credibility...if they have any left.

Unfortunately our own media lack the scientific expertise to properly evaluate the deniers' claims and often get seduced by the thought of a quick story aimed at sounding sensational and grabbing readers. It's not only developing countries media that has a problem.

Does anyone know a good bookie that will take bets on climate change?

Sure the climate has changed, but I doubt extremely strongly that it is man made, for the simple reason that this planets climate has changed in the past without the influence of man.

So the changes that are occuring are part of the natural cycle of this planet.

So any attempts by mankind to try and prevent it will be as effective as trying to turn back a hurricane.

JamesH. Just because natural climate change exists, does not mean that pumping large amounts of CO2, methane and other greenhouse gasses *dos not* have an impact.
Looking at our climate history also tells us that disaster is inevitable (Dino-killer, super-volcano, etc) and humans have a very small window to learn to live in space, or at least not spoil our cradle. Assuming "not in my lifetime" is an extinction strategy that appeals to nillhists and religious folk. (No responsibility in this life, all part of Gods plan!)
Also, yes there was a "global cooling" fear based on the natural ice ages and interglacials. There is even a chance that we have avoided an ice age by releasing all the stored carbon. This is confusing for the non-scientist (Complete opposites predicted) and does not necessarily make it a good thing! At besst it is a dangerous, destructive experiment, at worst it will bring on some *very* rapid changes that will be extremely painful and deadly.
As someone who has been reading about the science for the last 15 years, there was healthy skepticism from the scientific community, not to mention career pressure from funding sources *not* to come to the conclusion they have. (public funding of research is dismal, private sources have assets to protect) It is because the evidence (and there is a lot of extremely detailed evidence from different sources) no longer allows any other conclusion. In short: science has come to a consensus in a scientific manner. Lately they have even been allowed to publish results in the middle zone, whereas previously only the most conservative ("safe") results were publishable.
It is the deniers that are practicing political bias and/or ignorance of the real science.
I personally believe we have already passed the tipping point socio-economically if not physically. To prosper through the inevitable weather turmoil we must start living smart instead of allowing Bankers and Clerics to set government policy. Homo Sapiens? Yeh right!