If Al Gore is right ...thats a pretty big IF from a pretty big blowhard

I think the problem for agriculture is not a gradual shift in rainfall and temperature but more extreme variations within a season. Examples are frosts occurring during the fruit ripening period or rain falling in intermittent deluges rather than steady showers. That's one reason I believe GW is already more damaging than we think. There is also a strong connection with fossil fuel use via fertiliser manufacturing and the tendency to use coal fired electricity for increased air conditioning and light rail. Several European countries are going that way despite having signed Kyoto. If these problems are not already evident to most they will be within a few short years

GW leads to less frosts and is actually cited as evidence for such....

With all the information and articles on Global Warming, and I do believe most of the dire predictions, I never seem to see any reference to the quantity of people on this planet. Over 40 years ago I read Paul Erlick's book "The Population Bomb" and took good note of what he said and how he felt the increasing volume would affect us all. Every Western government is committed to expansion on this finite planet and most continue to subsidise people to breed...."One for Mum, one for Dad and one for the county" as out treasurer exhorts. No one except the Chinese took any notice over where we were all heading and in the name of progress we are now paying the penalty. Who are the people who will look after and pay the taxes for the elderly to survive people ask? Well all that should have been a consideration many years ago and we will now have the inevitable over-lap in generations, as the population has to fall to remain sustainable. Three billion in the 60s and now over 6 billion and climbing. Am I the only one in step ?

“Should those of us living in low lying coastal areas consider selling out now?”
Probably, for many. Widespread, are areas which should never have been selected for permanent habitation in the first place: sitting-ducks for wipe-out at some time under present climatic conditions; without global warming considerations. Geoscience Australia has tried to alert the public via its geohazards program, dealing particularly with cities. Much of the low-lying east coast already has built-in impermanence.
“And what about the land?” Yes indeed - already over-stressed under present land-use practices and (and present, historical and recent geological) climate restraints. About a quarter of this planet’s biological mass is composed of fungi; largely within the surface layers of the soil. Australian agriculture and farming has removed much of this, via erosion and practices generally working against it, not with it. Agriculture here has an affinity with mining practice – destruction of capital, slaving to survive the dictates of market forces. Again, there is already built-in impermanence well before change arrives.
“global warming might eventually remove up to 20 per cent of the gross domestic product from the world economy.” Could very well be, and from the above it can be seen that we are already on a knife-edge; over-committed by virtue of present circumstances. But the economic system by which we currently live is dedicated to increasing the pressure on coastal communities and upon the land which provides food, clothing, and export earnings.
The forthcoming government following the next election, from either side of the political divide, is committed beforehand to continue increasing community numbers – currently at 1.32 per cent. This will multiply by one and a half the present population in 30 years.
“Who will be the winners and who the losers in the climate change lottery in Australia over the next 30 years?” Under present political and economic direction, Everyone will be a loser. We are not coping sustainably now, in catering for present numbers.
Climate change will multiply present problems, which will be multiplied again by population increase.

I agree with the last post: 'Under present political and economic direction, Everyone will be a loser. We are not coping sustainably now, in catering for present numbers.'

We are either talking in the language of denial, a prime example is our PM, and Treasurer, or our 'green' Premiers and Civic leaders who are talking the talk, 60% target reductions, but when you examine their actual achievements in greenhouse reduction, and scrutinise their strategies, it's apparent that their approaches have no chance for making the level of significant change indicated by the CSIRO.

Our governments' fundamental policy flaw is to rely on market 'choice' between products and services that are high emitters or low GHG emmitters. Tough manditory Australian Standards are urgently needed to be imposed by governments to give industry and the general public the clear direction required. Carbon dioxide and methane should be heavily regulated to a bare minimum. Their accummilated abundance is toxic to life as we know it.

By taking bold policy leadership on greenhouse reduction now, we can show the world what Australians' value. We may just earn some respect in the world for our efforts and achievements, replacing our awful reputation as world's worst (per capita) emitters of CO2 to the world's lowest. To achive that kind of change will mean fundamental changes to the kinds of technology we use. There is sufficient goodwill amongst most Australians to make the transition