Let’s check on another Flannery scare from 2008 -
his claim that the Arctic could be ice-free by 2013:
Yes, let's do that. Follow the September trend down. How far off do you really think he was? Also note the language:
maybe in 5 years... Meanwhile (well, 2006), in print (where there is more space available)
he was saying...
"Before 2004, the rate of melt was such that scientists believed the icecap would melt entirely by about 2100. At the trajectory set by the new rate of melt, however, there will be no Arctic icecap in the next five to 15 years."
Looking at the trend, I don't think he was that far off at all.
Meanwhile, with regards to the sea level claim, he was quoting James Hansen saying that we only have a decade or so to
avert a 25m sea level rise. Note, that's not in any way saying that sea levels will rise 25m in a decade - it's saying that we're setting the climate's thermostat to a point where, at equilibrium, sea levels will be 25m higher. How does he know this? Because last time CO2 levels were this high, that's how high the oceans were. But as Hansen, Flannery and effectively all climate scientists keep saying, that equilibrium is at least a few hundred years away - by 2100, sea levels will be at most ~3m higher. But don't believe me - read
Hansen's own words on the subject.
But of course, that won't stop the right-wing noise machine (professional or amateur) twisting it into a conveniently flammable ***.
So, to sum up: Flannery bought a house that, according to the best available science (which he accurately cited) will remain well above water for his lifetime. Quite understandably, he's probably not too personally worried about what happens to the value of that property beyond that period. After all, you can't take it with you...
And that attitude is perfectly fine when one is making decisions that only affect one's self. He obviously likes the area and (quite understandably, given the seriously scary treatment of him in the public sphere) wants somewhere with maximum privacy. But when discussing public policy, any responsible government must look beyond that "in my lifetime / my own interests" level, and ensure that policy choices don't seriously negatively affect the future population.
But apparently that level of nuance is too difficult for some - or perhaps it's just too convenient to reduce it to a simple black-and-white.
