Illogical, irrational and nonsensical arguments

Comments on Michael Hitchens “Our 5 per cent accord pledge is more than enough”, 29/12/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/our-5-per-cent-accord-pledge-is-more-than-enough/story-e6frg6zo-1225977423500

I find Michael Hitchens view incredibly misleading, to say the best of it.

Let's start with his last or concluding sentence, that is, "There is no evidence yet that would support Australia going beyond 5 per cent in Durban next year."

How could he say whether there is evidence or not for next year? Isn't complete and utter nonsense? Does he have a crystal ball to gaze into the future?

Secondly, his third paragraph is just incomprehensibly confusing. He must have misquoted or misrepresented what the government's publicly stated stance.

Thirdly, how can he justify for demanding developing countries to reduce emissions absolutely now, given that they only emit a fraction of what the developed countries' in per capita level? Why didn't he say that the developed countries reduce their emissions to the level of the developing countries' first before demanding the latter to reduce theirs?

The whole post is illogical, irrational and nonsensical.

I wonder why the Australian find it any use to publish this nonsense.