We, meaning people, but yes, I did really mean America, the most prolific space fairing nation in the past. The Chinese may go there again soon, but not yet. I'll reserve my opinion about their ability until I see their manned rocket land there and return.

Florida is thousands of times the size of Kiribati and probably tens of thousands of times the population...and is FAR from the only place in jeopardy. I was not ignoring Kiribati, or the dozens of other island nations, or Venice, or Alaska, or, well, any place with a coast line, I was giving one example. It's a little funny that you decided to say 'Florida?!? It's far worse over in Kiribati' while you're trying also to say 'Don't panic, it's not bad'. WHAT?!? I think the people of Kiribati would disagree that it's not time to panic! ;-)

That's not the data I've seen. What I've read (from numerous sources) said the rate of rise is accelerating, not a steady rate over the last 100+ years, and it is expected to continue accelerating. When you say they can "cope" with it, what do you mean, because even the little amount of rise we've seen so far has already displaced tens of thousands of people, and very few have just adapted to the new situation? What evidence have you that there's a solution to the loss of useable land?
Oh, from your volcano example, I see that by "cope" you mean "die". That's not how I intend to "cope", thanks. ;-)
Kiribati has seen tsunamis, and survived them. Being in open ocean, most are barely perceptible. There's no continental shelf to make them 'grow'. That said, 1 foot of sea rise puts a large portion of the island underwater and makes the rest FAR more susceptible to damage from even a small tsunami.

Really? That's not what I've been reading for decades. California alone, which produces over 1/4 of America's food, is in the worst drought ever recorded due to climate change, and production is falling like a stone there. They are not alone by any means. Africa, Australia, etc have the same issues. It's not mainly an issue of violence world wide, it's an issue of lack of water. The violence is often CAUSED by the lack of food, making the 'men with guns' have a reason to steal and control food sources. If food were plentiful, it would be impossible for them to do so. Africa did have the means to grow their own food, before they stopped getting enough water. That's the biggest road block, the seed can be donated and fertilizer only increases yields, it's not needed in most cases to sustain crops.
Because some war torn countries have issues with roving gangs of gun toting thugs does not make gun toting thugs the reason Africa is food poor. The thugs SELL that food, so it doesn't just disappear, it still gets eaten, and there's still a huge famine, so.....

Yes, adopting new tech, even quick adoption, absolutely CAN be an economic boon, just not for the oil companies in this instance. Just consider the adoption of the automobile, it was fast, and great for the economy in numerous ways.

EDIT:And I have said clearly that I don't think anything done today will effect 2100. The greenhouse gasses stay in the atmosphere that long or longer, so today's change in emissions will only equate to a change in the climate after 2115, so we can't avoid 1 foot of sea level rise. We can, however, stop increasing the rate of change (the system reacts to greenhouse gas addition right away, but takes 100+ years to react to reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, so we can make it worse, but not better than that prediction...and that's the road we're on, making it worse daily).

Yes, changing the resolution changed the measurements ON THAT ONE OUTLYING GLACIER ONLY. It explained why it alone wasn't following the models, which was because a large portion of it was incredibly high up, making it colder, but on average it was below the 'melt line', skewing the data.
78% less glacier (your figures) still mean more than 78% less runoff, so >78% less water....in areas that are already completely dependent on glacial water to support humans and already have water supply issues today. Even the low 65% number is disastrous.
The glaciers do not need to be gone in order to be useless as sources of fresh water. I did not say all glaciers would be 'gone' I said they would no longer supply the demand, and there's no known tech in the pipeline that can.
So, in short, please stop twisting and exaggerating what I write to create strawman arguments to shoot down. It gets old fast.

I now realise that some of the comments above were describing Canadian Lynx (Lynx canadensis) as "Lynx" even though Bobcat (Lynx Rufus) is also a Lynx and so is Lynx Lynx (Eurasian Lynx).

All the pictures of the Canadian Lynx that I had previously seen were ones with their shaggy winter coat that makes them look like they're wearing pyjamas (http://goo.gl/zlJUS5) But anyway, I agree with you that it ticks off all the bobcat signifiers. It's also a long way from Canada or Alaska.

That's no "Alaska Dude" ... it's Mr. Safety - the Mean Kitty's dad freshly transplanted from SoCal.

Well, to put too fine a point on it, agreed. You are correct. I have never skipped a rock off this particular ice-encrusted lake in Alaska.

Bad day?

Excellent idea and if you think about it, Alaska is kind of in the middle of everyone so it would be good for me to keep it here most times.

Seems to be working so far...
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/alaska-cannabis-club-s-freedom-fairness-fight

So you can't prove a negative, let's inject chemicals into children? This world has almost been destroyed several times over because people just assumed things would be ok if they tried some shit. America was going to use Nuclear Bombs to clear a bit of Alaska and they couldn't do it because some eskimos said "You don't know what'll happen." They know now that basically all of north america would be destroyed.

So you come back with "Can't prove a negative" I come back with, STOP FUCKING WITH SHIT WHEN YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING. You can trust the government and corporations all you want. I want them regulated. Plain and fucking simple.

In Alaska they take piper cubs and actually dip their wheels in water while flying.

I walked through snow in 6th grade to get this album out on Ft. Richardson in Alaska.

The people in LA that freaked about a 4.5 need to see this, and then either move or get over it.
...and the people from Northern California to Alaska also need to see this, before the Cascadia fault slips. It has the capability to make a 9+, and just offshore enough to make a huge tsunami...and it's overdue too.

If you think looking at tit's is a sexual advance I would imagine you live in northern Alaska where other "people" aren't even near you. How do you walk around in society? Do you dictate what everyone is allowed to look at? If you really "treat people as people" you should tolerate what other people decide to set their eyes upon. People like you would have us all become androgynous clones so that no one is different than the next. I like diversity - which is another reason tits are so seductive - they come in all shapes and sizes, they're like fingerprints or snow flakes. You should look into your Scopophobia. I imagine as the world becomes increasingly more populated it will be intolerable.

Weird! Here in Alaska we have them turned up to 200 mph!

I heard some regions of Canada plug in their cars to electrical outlets to help protect them overnight.

Do you guys do that in Alaska?

have pounded on clear ice encasement here 1000x.. Alaska will, occasionally, encase your car in clear ice