These blame games very rarely offend anyone, all partys know that it is part of the process of public negotiations.

yes i agree this blame is a diplomatic front put up to shield each nation's strategies, to hint at signals, to present a believable good makeup to the media & the public and to hide the most crucial under table contrivances. but this does not exclude the need for democratic peaceful public expression of their thoughts on the issue nor does it exclude their role in changing the course of events. what matters is that the final solution must be an agreement for the betterment, which neednot necessarily be equal, of all the parties, especially the public, specifically the future generation, in the longterm.

Blaming can also make them more stubbon and determined to defend their position, it offends the negotiators and reduces the chance that they will be willing to make concessions to get past the problem.

Risking international relationships for sake of 'interest' in the media is dangerous. In international conferences, such as the Copenhagen, the relationships are vital in reaching a solution for greater good. This is because most countries participate, not only for the global society's well-being, but more for their own goods. When the conference or the media is seen as a threat to a country's reputation or image, the country may see more harms than benefits of participating in a conference, and be reluctant to participate next time.

Blame is more than just for the media. It is a way for people to hold their own or foreign governments to hold them to account and put pressure on them to introduce regulations to introduce rules and incentives to reduce emissions for example. It is also for individuals and groups to identify obstacles to making progress on countering climate change.