This was a very interesting article, not the least for its cold-blooded tone and the accompanying maps, predicting a sort of "coastal apocalypse by gradualism."
This study, I imagine, was greeted with glee in the corridors of power of the Anglo-American elite, if, indeed, they didn't fund the study themselves. Let's assume the study is true and that its predictions may be relied upon with ironclad confidence, and that the Anglo-American elite will react with their usual claptrap of increased energy consumption regulation and taxes, more calls for stricter global measures and global government - you know, their same old Maurice Strong song-and-tap-dance routine.
This is where reason enters the picture (and they hate that). A rise of sea levels to the predicted coastlines in the study over the next 90 years need not be met with government programs or mass evacuations or global taxes. The natural human response, as sea levels rise, will be simply to gradually build in response to it, moving cities further and further away from their current sites, if the study is, in fact, true. We've responded this way before in history, and we will do so again. It isn't such studies that should disturb one, nor lead one into paroxyms of apocalyptic depair and hand-wringing, but rather, the responses of the elite that should do so, for their responses are, in my opinion, a vast irrelevance.