Vernon's statement seems about right with the "new consensus" amongst the Hansen's and other real climatologists out there. James Hansen is probably right, all his models from the 80's have come true so far. He even "modelled in" (don't use the term PREDICTED because that is unscientific, more on that later) in a volcano that might slow global warming, and got that right within a few years!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6Un69RMNSw

As far as 100 m sea level rise, I thought that even if all ice and snow on earth melted the maximum was 65 meters. Maybe that's thermal expansion of the water?

Tim Flannery's "ongoing drought" issue has a context.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200506/s1389858.htm
He spells out 3 natural systems that are affecting rainfall in Australia, all of which still appear to be factors, and then states...

"If you think there's only a 10 per cent chance that this rainfall deficit's going to continue for another few years, you'd be pulling out all stops to preserve water," he said.

He was talking in the language of PROBABILITIES, not PREDICTION!

It's called risk management. Rather than being a "prophet" PREDICTING what will happen, risk management is all about playing the odds appropriately. He was spelling out a risk management scenario with the clear suggestion of low PROBABILITIES, that it probably only had a 10% chance.

And note this. Many are saying El Nino is back. Our lovely year without a summer is over. All that beautiful La Nina rain! My lawn was so green. Now we're heading back into El Nino... what if climate change makes it "get stuck" for a bit longer than it should be? We could STILL see Tim Flannery's 10% risk mitigation scenario come to fruition.

Sometimes people need worst case scenarios to prepare, because sometimes things are just true. The language of fear is called for. I have seen NO evidence presented by the sceptics that stands rigorous scientific scrutiny, and instead we witness the climate changing FASTER than the most dire warnings of the IPCC!

It is often not understood that the IPCC, as a political body based on a consensus approval process, has produced in its summary reports language that expresses the lowest common denominator position; statements that were so unassailably supported by the science that even Bush-era US, Saudi Arabia, etc etc could not object.

There's a substantial body of opinion among climate scientists that the 2007 AR4 IPCC summary report understates the potential risks. Note that the IPCC "summary reports" are subject to this political consensus approval process; the "technical reports" are not. The technical reports stand up as excellent syntheses of the scientific understanding of the time; however, bear in mind that things have moved on considerably since then.

Eclipse Now,

On one hand, you say that scientists are not fostering alarm, but now you say "the language of fear is called for". I think perhaps you should just quieten down for a while.

Gilliana

Eclipse Now seems to be subscribing to Robin Williams ilk, ABC Science Person, who predicted 100 metre sea rises by the end of the century and under extreme questioning by a JJJ compere, admitted, very bitterly, that "you have to exaggerate to get people's attention".

End of all credibility. Unbelievable that this person is considered a National Treasure, so that "award" goes the same way as the Nobel Peace Prize, (after it was awarded to Yasser Arafat), down the drain as a political tool rather than an unemotional measure of humanity.

EN is of the same genre, all panic and doom, "to get attention".

Sorry EN, but you and your cohorts of the Scientology AGW religion deserve no less.

eclipse now, i will spell it out very clearly pv=nrt, v is constant defined by earth's gravity (volume of atmosphere), r is a constant. n increases marginally with additional greenhouse gas, temperature increase lead to increased pressure. directly proportional. this is normal in linear equations showing the relationship between variables. Let me know if I have lost you so far.

Therefore a 1% increase in temperature leads to a wait for it 1% increase in pressure. the purpose of raising this is that the measurement of pressure will independantly confirm or refute the temperature changes.

Slasher
The atmosphere is not a closed system.
You are misrepresenting and distorting the science, why?
If you want to play 'climate science', do some homework.