"Many natural resources are likely to fall victim to climate change according to the IPCC draft report:

* Some 20 to 30 percent of all species face a "high risk of extinction" should average global temperatures rise another 1.5 to 2.5 degrees Celsius from their 1990 levels. That could happen by 2050, the report warns.
* Coral reefs are "likely to undergo strong declines."
* Salt marshes and mangrove forests could disappear as sea levels rise.
* Tropical rainforests will be replaced by savanna in those regions where groundwater decreases.
* Migratory birds and mammals will suffer as vegetation zones in the Artic shift.

The IPCC expects the following world regions to suffer the most due to climate change:

* The Arctic due to the greatest relative warming
* Small island states in the Pacific as sea levels rise
* Africa south of the Sahel zone due to drought
* Densely populated river deltas in Asia amid flooding "
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,469608,00.html
[linked from Drudge.com]

So we have warmed .6 C over last century and has there in this time been one species that has gone extinct due to global warming of this time period?
Coral reef are unlikely to undergo strong decline. As recent ocean temperatures have decreased in temperature. Human pollution might have affect on coral reefs but it's unlikely that global temperature will have any affect.
Obviously if sea levels were to increase there would be an increase in salt marshes and mangrove forests, but so far sea level have not been increasing significantly.
In the hundred years of warming the tree line has not moved a measurable amount. And there is no reason that if global temperature were to increase by .6 C over the next century that tree line would suddenly decide to move more than it already has. Now, if global temperatures were to increase by 1.5 to 2.5 then it might be possible that the tree line shift upwards by a amount that allowed to actually measurable- say a kilometer to tens of kilometers.

There is no reason why we should expect that Arctic is "due to the greatest relative warming". If the tree line had shifted northward during the last century there might be some basis for such a claim.
Some small island in pacific are sinking- but this has nothing to due with sea levels rising- if sea level were stay the same these islands would still sink- and of course this also true of river deltas in Asia or river deltas anywhere.

There is no evidence of accelerated global warming. It's unlikely that global temperature will increase at a rate of .1 C per decade- the last ten year didn't have an increase of .1 C per decade, rather it was flat or or slightly declining. But if you were to average the last 3 decades you would have increase of somewhere around .1 C per decade.
I think it unlikely to have an increase of .1 C per decade average increase in global temperature, but I would grant that this is possible. If you take the period between 1990 to 2050 and were to have a .1 C per decade increase you obviously would have .6 C increase in 60 years- and we are current "falling behind" in terms of making this level of increasing global temperature.

If global temperature were to increase by .6 C by 2050, what affects could expect to see as a result of this increase? I would say that the affect would be similar to the increase of .6 C from the last century- or in other words no noticeable affect: orange trees aren't going to grow in Oregon, the tree line isn't going move by tens of kilometers northward, no species are going to go extinct from this global warming, sea level may rise by 6-12 cm [or 2-5 inches]. The arctic ice pack will continue to fluctuate- has it has done for centuries.

Now, let's say the year is 2020 [13 years from now, halfway between 1990 and 2050]. What was the average price of crude oil in the last year [2019]? 40, 60 or $100 per barrel? Or maybe it's 20 or $200 per barrel. It doesn't much matter what price it is for the American consumer, because currently the America consumer spend far more on transportation by buying the latest model of car. This would unnecessarily be true of places like china and India.
Probably far more significant in America would be the heating and lighting bill- and if we increased the amount nuclear power generated electricity by 50-100% in next 13 years that could significantly lower CO2 emission and ensure less increase electrical power cost and provide any additional power needed for a increase in electric car use and provide safer and cleaner way to heat homes.

Now in the year 2007, are prices of homes near beaches reducing because of overwhelming fear of sea level rises? Or in year 2020 is that going begin to happen after a 1-3 inch increase in sea level?
Now, for there to be a .6 C increase by 2050, by the year 2020 we would need to a string of record global temperatures. So far in the year 2007 we had yet to beat 1998. Now maybe 2007 will be warmer than 1998, but that also means that generally '08, 09, 10, 11 would also need to be higher than 1998. In other words the longer will stay at about the current level the more impossible it will be to get to the .3 increase needed by 2020. And if we *manage* get a .3 C increase by 2020 what affect will there be- answer less than whatever effect was created by .6 increase over last century- in other words nothing really noticeable. Though it probably would seem alarming and as a result government may do things which even worse than they are currently doing [Kyoto govts have utterly wasted 300 billion dollars doing nothing effective, so if global temperatures "turn around" maybe by then they will waste a trillion or so dollars doing nothing, and then at some point may decide to waste tens of trillions of dollars doing nothing].
In 2007 China has exceeded or within a couple years, will definitely exceed the US in producing CO2, So by 2020 China could be emitting 150 to 200% of US emission- and most of this will be from coal. Now if the US would significantly step up what it is currently doing to increase the amount of nuclear power, I could see a future of 2020 in which the US is emitting 1990 levels of CO2 [actually meet Kyoto treaty agreement without the needing to sign it- btw, signing it hasn't helped the countries which belong to Kyoto].
But even if we do this it won't reduce global CO2 unless China and India and other growing economies, take steps to increase energy efficiency and use more nuclear power. Now, I don't think the world is doomed because of the possibility that they will emit a large amount of CO2. Let's assume they China, etc continue their mad rate of increase of CO2 emission and do this to 2020. Let's assume a dramatic increase so that on average between 2007 and 2020 global on average increase by 3 ppm per year, and say that adds to base of 380 ppm, so give 419 ppm. In our past no one can claim that a 40 ppm increase has increased global temperature by as much as .3 C. So this by itself will not get us to .3 C increase by 2020. Now for China to continue until 2020 at it's mad rate, it will run out of coal- it's already importing coal. I don't mean by 2020 China won't have any coal. I mean that by 2020 China will be in similar situation with their coal as the US is in regards to it's oil reserves. And it will have problems importing coal and shipping coal to where it's needed. Therefore it's costs of coal could easily double or triple and make it uneconomical to use coal as compared to other sources of energy. Adding more coal plants will simply be uneconomical. It would make more economical sense to maintain or reduce the amount coal being used- it makes more sense to make a efficient coal plant that can operate for 50 years with enough supply of coal so that coal is cheap than have coal plants which in 20 years will need to be shutdown because coal is too expensive to get. Now the US has lots of coal but unless coal prices rise considerable it's not economical to ship it to China- and obviously countries exporting coal could pressure China to use less, if the Chinese weren't smart enough to figure out they should use less. In addition one of areas China is devoting research dollars is to make pebble nuclear reactors, so they will probably not only use more nuclear reactors but they looking to export this technology.

Another aspect is that though global CO2 is around 380 ppm, CO2 level in urban areas is significantly higher say around 500 ppm. China has huge dense cities; I don't know what the levels of CO2 can get to in these cities, but it seems that levels as high as 800-1000 ppm could be reached and in certain situations it could get even higher. If you keep increasing CO2 in cities, and you combine crowded areas with poor ventilation, you eventually going have problems with some people getting enough oxygen- say when circumstances give conditions in which CO2 are +2000 ppm. Now maybe it will become a fad in 2020 for urban Chinese to run around with supplemental O2, but regardless it seems the Chinese people and those in charge will need to do something reduce local sources of CO2.