Much scrutiny would have to be done on a study of current migration patterns that suggest that ocean level rise and global warming were contributing to that in a significant way (beyond migration due to fear of possible catastrophe). Migration has a pretty complex array of causes, as the report states as well.

Now climate has a tendency to change whether or not humans have a significant effect on the process or not. The report is a pretty good effort to see what would happen under certain scenarios. And the maps produced are pretty cool too.

Caveat: I had a disagreement with you months ago about the level of ocean rise in the Indian Ocean. Specifically around the Maldives. You pointed me to some data regarding the rise of ocean levels, and I confess that when I noticed that it was fairly detailed raw data, my work schedule forced me away from looking at it very closely.
So let’s say that I can’t deny the data you provided points to ocean level rise at some point in the recent past. My point in my comment was that people smarter than I, with expertise in Oceanography, looked at data from that region and came to different conclusions. And we should never consider an issue closed for debate when people with expertise in the arena in question come to different conclusions.

I left that conversation months ago with the thought that you might think I was a prat who didn’t trust science, so more on where I’m coming from. I’m generally open to discussion about global climate change. No matter how much people want to see the world through the lens of a static point in time, physical conditions are always changing. Therefore study about the effects of change is always necessary.
I’m also open to discussion on the human effects on global climate systems. However, good science needs debate, strict methodology and peer review. It doesn’t help the cause of those who promote the science behind our affect on climate change to have people like Al Gore leading the charge. As reasonable opponents of any theory of human-caused components should be diligent about refuting wacky arguments from the fringe of their side, so should proponents. Opponents and proponents need to accept and discuss findings that support and refute their position without getting defensive. For instance opponents of warming need to address why changes have been coming fairly dramatically lately and proponents need to address findings by NASA that global temperatures have flat-lined in the last few years.

Having said all that, as I often say to friends, I can completely discount the theory that we contribute to global warming and still come up with a dozen solid reasons for supporting recycling, reducing, reusing, restricting emissions and regulating oil consumption. I’d really like not to snort tailpipe when biking to work.