"In areas that experience little change or an increase in average rainfall, more frequent or heavier downpours are likely. Conversely, there will be more dry spells in regions where average rainfall decreases."

What does this mean?

All it says is that low rainfall cause dry spells and high rainfall cause wet spells.

This has been happening for millions of years and doesn't prove anything.

Rain = wet, no rain = dry. simple.

t.u.s.

Jeez Bryson, why don't you read the Online Opinion forums associated with statements similar to yours ?

There's simply no solid proof for your assertions that human activity influences climate.

There's no solid proof that carbon dioxide has any more than a tiny influence on climate. The Stefan-Boltzmann law of radiation and temperature indicates that the increase since 1750 should be about 0.25 degrees. Temperatures have fluctuated an awful lot since that date, including in the last 10 years.

There's also no proof that Australia will be hotter or that we will have more hot days. Don't be suckered by the CSIRO's predictions. It is easy to show they are nonsense. Check those predictions closely and see if they tell you when the El Nino droughts are coming because these have more far influence on temperature than carbon dioxide.

Please read those forums that I mentioned above. You might learn something without us having to repeat all the arguments here just for you.

The main point about this debate is the sources of information for both sides.

The sceptics rely on observable data, satellite info. temperature records, ice core samples etc etc. information that is easy to verify and relies on the observable input of many disciplines of science. The pro-warming side seem to rely heavily on computer modelling which is only as good as the info. put in. There are too many unknowns and variables to take these computer projections as Gospel.

It's just the same old scare campaign that we've had in one form or another forever. Eugenics, nuclear winter, overpopulation resulting in world-wide starvation etc, the exhaustion of our fossil fuels by the mid 1970's, the millenium bug, just to name a few.

The main attraction with Global warming is that it gives the environmental organisations global exposure and power. If they were fair dinkum most of their resources would be spent on real environmental concerns, things that impact us and our children right now or in the very near future, things like the rape of our oceans, habitat destruction, pollution of rivers and waterways and better ways of managing wilderness areas. These are the real environmental concerns we face, not some vague maybe, maybe not science THEORY that probably has as many benefits for the planet as dangers.

The author thinks Kyoto is a good step towards stemming an increase in global temperature. Why doesn't the author say how much he thinks the temperature will rise with Kyoto in place and without Kyoto in place? What is the attenuation effect of the Kyoto protocol? Answer, almost nothing. That's why Kyoto advocates, normally ever ready to quote temperature values, never answer that key question.