The idea is interesting and I'm glad to know about it, but there is a glaring flaw in his reasoning which nobody else here has commented on so I'll do it: "I w

The idea is interesting and I'm glad to know about it, but there is a glaring flaw in his reasoning which nobody else here has commented on so I'll do it: "I was in Holland a few summers ago and was trying to convince the Dutch that if the Greenland ice sheet melts, they have less to worry about than the Antarctic ice sheet melting. But it doesn’t register." because, is there a polar melting hypothesis that melts the Arctic without melting the Antarctic? It could be that his idea is that both poles have water stacked up from ice sheet gravity more than it would be than melted, but the reasoning in that quote doesn't make that point, it makes a different point that is not useful, and he is I guess saying that there would just be more flooding than expected near the equator?