A tax on pollution will hasten innovation into non polluting alternatives. Carry on as normal and nothing will change. We will have many more fun events to look forward to. I think you have all you are going to get out of science, other than waiting on events to happen so some statistics are collected. The balance of nature has been compromised, less trees, less open grassed areas. More co2 in the upper atmosphere. Glacial ice melt, releasing more co2. Ocean temperatures rising means higher tides, and bigger storms.
The huge snow falls happening around the world can only happen with the appropriate amount of moisture in the atmosphere. So where does all this extra amount of moisture come from, You guessed right 'global warming'

It is encouraging to see so many here being willing to challenge the claims made by the scientific community about the supposed looming environmental catastrophe caused by our burning of carbon fuel. I cringe when I see how some people genuflect whenever the word “science” is mentioned or the title “eminent scientist” attached to an individual.

Scientists are people just like everyone else. They have careers to promote and jobs to hold down. To do this they have to earn the respect of their peers and their superiors. Many have families to raise, homes to maintain and mortgages to pay off. All of this can be put in jeopardy if they publicly question the current scientific conclusions about “climate change.”

The reason for this is that the scientific community has dug itself into a deep hole. It is in receipt of billions of dollars in research grants from government and industry around the world as a direct result of the publicity that has been generated by their predictions of this “catastrophe.” The moment one their number stands up and publicly challenges what has become scientific dogma, this funding is put at risk. Such irresponsible action has to be stopped, for if this income stream were to be withdrawn those climate research institutions would be reduced to a fraction of their size.

Further, senior members of this community have, in the past, convinced political and corporate leaders to take difficult and unpopular decisions to face up to “the greatest moral challenge of our time.” It is now impossible for these scientists to go back and admit that there is growing doubt that the actions these leaders have been urged to take will make any significant difference to global temperatures or to a changing climate.

To suggest that scientists are above such considerations is naive in the extreme. Being human they can and do make mistakes both individually and collectively. This furore about climate change is a big one.

It beggars belief that some posters are requesting 'proof' that AGW proponents claimed there would be LESS not MORE rainfall in Australia due to climate change and that the continent would be WARMER and DRIER.

http://www.csiro.au/resources/ps3bv.html

I've already linked to the Greenpeace site which claims endless droughts for Australia?? Didn't anyone read it?

Now some claim that it is 'obvious' that warm atmosphere is accompanied by increasing ability to hold water as mentioned by the roundly criticised Ian Plimer.

The two views are obviously inconsistent. The original warmist take that warm meant dry, now they say warm means wet. Why the amnesia?

Just to help the ol' memory along.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/03/1070351653324.html?from=storyrhs

Actually Atman, that CSIRO link appears to have a section on what the effects might be:

What are the likely affects of climate change on Australia?

The likely affects of climate change in Australia include that Australia will:
become warmer and drier
become warmer by 0.4 to 2 °C by 2030, 1 to 6 °C by 2070, more hot days and fewer cold days
have less rainfall in the south, particularly in winter and spring
have more rainfall in north-eastern Australia in summer and autumn
have increased evaporation and changes in rainfall will lead to a net drying over all of Australia
have heavier rainfall
experience stronger tropical cyclones.

Now it seems to me that "have more rainfall in north-eastern Australia in summer and autumn" is spot-on. And they mention "heavier rainfall" and stronger tropical cyclones. But hey, it's your link, what's wrong with it?

Perth is in the grip of drought as the winter rains didn't come, why is that? Perhaps Mark could enlighten us.

These guys think that the current drought over there is pretty bad
http://www.watoday.com.au/environment/climate-change/wa-drought-could-be-worst-for-750-years-20100205-niee.html

And the last time I checked, it's not 2070.

Atman writes

'It beggars belief that some posters are requesting 'proof' that AGW proponents claimed there would be LESS not MORE rainfall in Australia due to climate change and that the continent would be WARMER and DRIER.
'

Surely you realise its about Green faith so reasoning never did or will come into it.

I think it would help by trying to separate the science from the politics. As Bugsy points out, the predictions being heavily criticised are for several decades hence.

I am reminded of some scientists in the late 1990s who warned the government that extra sources of water supply need to be developed immediately to avoid possible water shortages and to allow the Wivenhoe Dam to be used for its intended purpose of flood mitigation. The advice was ignored. In less than a decade the pollies went into sheer panic in the face of a drought. They wasted billions of dollars on substandard works which would not have averted disaster had the rain not come. They also set up a political bureaucracy to manage water. This included the contradictory task of treating the Wivenhoe Dam as both a facility for water storage and flood mitigation. Now, a few years later, the Brisbane River has flooded in no small part because of the heavy reliance on the Wivenhoe Dam as a water storage facility.

One piece of advice that was heeded was the recommendation to have cyclone rated buildings in cyclone prone areas. This has substantially mitigated the damage from storms and cyclones. I have not heard anyone complaining that the standards are too strict and should be relaxed.

Scientists seem to cop much criticism for making predictions. Most of the criticism would be better directed at the politicians who either ignore advice and/or imagine that their policies will solve the problem.

There are many promising technologies from which we will benefit whether or not the predictions of climate scientists turn out to be true. And if the threat of AGW is a driver for the development of these technologies, then how is that a bad thing?