I think most people are accepting or eventually will accept that increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are affecting our weather. In the recent La Nina wetter period we should have had dams in place to store this water for the coming drier period. Dams are able reduce flooding by holding back stream flow and releasing it during dry periods. If it were not for water held in our dams there would have been no water available for South Australia and rivers of the Murray Darling system would have ceased to flow in the recent drought. The flood damage to property would have been minimised and the extra hydroelectric power available from new dams would add to our supply of clean energy.
We need to build more dams now to accommodate the huge variance in rainfall that we will inevitably face. The need to increase water holding infrastructure must happen now without consideration to environmental or heritage issues. We may have to strengthen government power to resume land and override environmental concerns for the future of everyone.

Siller; great post and great pragmatism mate. Water is arguably the most inert substance we know? Therefore, modest dams placed in gorges and areas of similar erosion, will do as you say, all while limiting/ending erosion. Placing them in gorges will store water, without increasing evaporation factors.
Nathans gorge, i.e., will hold back more water than that contained in Sydney harbour? A modest hydro electric plant, would ensure that a moderated flow, would still serve both irrigators and the environment alike?
Strategically located dams would do all this; all while protecting and preventing the marine environment being inundated and damaged by the millions of tons of suspended solids, that always accompany major flood events!
Arguably, the principle reason for "GREEN" opposition to damming the headwaters of many rivers; has its foundation in their anti development aspirations; and or, preferred agrarian modelled future?
Likewise, their ongoing opposition to the nuclear option, even though we now have operational thorium reactors, which cannot make waste that can then be used in nuclear weapons; or, comparatively safe pebble reactors, which can be mass produced and trucked on site; meaning, the nuclear carbon free energy option can now be provided for less than current coal-fired power. Cheers, Rhrosty.

Siller/Rhrosty core drilling's of the corrals of the great barrier reef many years ago found firm evidence of droughts, worse than our last one with greater duration. They also found evidence of floods that make anything experienced in Queensland, in our time appear like a minor event. Perhaps you should keep your water wings handy.

Just before Cook cruised the reef there was one of these droughts that lasted 27 years. I saw some of this stuff back in the 70s, & wondered how we would cope, & decided it would be very badly.

This does not prove that CO2 has no effect on our weather, but it does prove that worse droughts were roaming the country long before anyone thought of SUVs.

I think it is fair to say that you will find nothing but support for more, & bigger dams among non greens, provided not too much of it is wasted in "environmental flows", code for lets stuff up their water use.

Rhrosty the US navy have been operating small packaged nuclear reactors for many years, in the very difficult environment of war ships. My small experience with the US navy did not convince me that they are the best trained folk on earth. If they can do this, safely for years, I'm sure nuclear, even with todays technology can be operated quite safely.

Personally I don't think it matters, as CO2 is not a villain to me, but for those brainwashed to believe the hype, I'll go along with it, if it eases their troubled minds.

Mark Lawson here.
Rhrosty - actually it was Egypt that was the granary of Rome, specifically the strip along the Nile and the delta which remains reasonably fertile (albeit not as it was), not the Sahara. At that time it was still desert.. However, the Sahara was fertile back before recorded history. Just what scientists say about why the shift occured now slips my mind, but it was long before anyone could reasonably claim that humans were altering climate.

SILLER - look you can cling to this idea that scientists might be able to prove that human activity has changed climate significantly if you like, but the stuff you are talking about concerning dams is flat wrong. There is no case for building more dams. As the article points out, efforts by scientists to forecast rainfall patterns using greenhouse theory were completely contradicted by events. Although I did not explore alternatives in the article it is possible that the current wet conditions in SE Australia will persist for at least a couple more decades. So when dry conditions return will they be dryer? The only indication we have that might be the case is greenhouse theory which, to restate the obvious, was found to be completely wrong in forecasting for the short term. Verdict: existing infrastructure probably needs to be reviewed for its effectiveness in preventing floods. Water storage doesn't enter into it.

In regard to dams Curmudgeon the glaciers above rivers emanating from the Himalayas and Swiss Alps are retreating at a rate that will make huge dams the only way to provide continuing flow in these rivers. In Australia we do not have the luxury of glaciers that release a reliable and constant flow of water. Dams are the only realistic solution. Also the southern oscillation index is again in negative territory which indicates lower than average rainfall at least for the coming winter. We have already experienced a drier than average April in South East Australia and Western Australia.

@Arjay, Saturday, 28 April 2012 8:52:36 AM says...
"The sea ice of the Artic when melted will not make sea levels rise since 90% of the ice is below the water anyway.Only if the Antartic and Greenland icepacks melt will sea levels rise and this has not happened."

From Nasa's website...
"The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005."

Mark says ...
"The point was that the scientists said clearly and loudly one thing was going to happen, then something else entirely happened. Further the contrast was so great that the public at large have noticed."

The problem is they were actually correct, there has been massive droughts and changes in other parts of the globe; hottest and driest in the US, similar in the UK ( they are now planting grapes in parts of Britain where nothing commercial would grow).

The point is that the climate is changing rapidly, 100 of times faster than ever before, and it affects weather which is much more volatile and so less predictable year on year but that does not make Flannery et al culpable for erroneous prediction, it merely emphasizes how difficult it is to predict and quantify the actual damage from AGW.