> It boggles my mind that a warm blooded creature that needs arable land would be upset about icecaps melting. The earth is a large system with lots of inertia

> It boggles my mind that a warm blooded creature that needs arable land would be upset about icecaps melting. The earth is a large system with lots of inertia. When some aspect of it changes relatively quickly, it's natural to be uneasy. Particularly when the downstream consequences of that change are already becoming visible. To wit CO2 levels over the last 1my. https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-atmospheric-concentrations-greenhouse-gases https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indica... The notion of increased CO2 leading to higher atmospheric heat capture dates back to at least 1856: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a2614102278e77e59a04f26/t/5aa1c3cf419202b500c3b388/1520550865302/foote_circumstances-affecting-heat-suns-rays_1856.pdf https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a2614102278e77e59a04... So the combination of well-established science connecting CO2 to atmospheric heat, a relatively massive increase in CO2, and the emergeng changes predicted by a atmospheric heat increase - that is a valid reason for concern. > We want the poles to be livable. If it was possible to make this happen in isolation, maybe it would be a desirable goal. Given that this is not possible, it has to be viewed in context of the costs it also imposes. More severe weather is part of it, but also loss of both coastline due to sealevel rise and inland areas that become unlivably hot or newly unsuitable for agriculture. > These changes are absolutely unpredictable and the models these researchers use are so heavily interlinked and layered one small mistake in the foundational data can skew the entire output. Almost as if thats how you lie with statistics... Here you make the other sort of error - the error where you throw up complexity as a smokescreen to distract from the potential need to take action. If you're waiting for a complete set of totally accurate predictive models before you're willing to take action, you'll be waiting for a long time. > Even so, I want Greenland to be habitable within the next 100 years. Even at the expense of coast line. Have you consulted the people that live on the coastline? It doesn't take a whole lot of sea level rise before you're displacing hundreds of millions of people. (Not to mention the other associated costs of higher atmospheric energy.)