O.K., Nicole, I see now that I did misinterpret your post to Teribus when I thought it showed that you didn't understand his argument.

In most of my Mudcat posts I deal with arguments and not with positions which sometimes may make it difficult for others to read my intentions. When I see what I consider a wrong argument I stand against it whether it is put forward by someone whose position I may share or not. I see that many people think that when I attack an argument I try to attack the entire position. This may be true for most people, it isn't for me.

Q is very close to my general position on this topic (as I read the post). I'm fairly convinced that what we do or don't doesn't really matter compared to the changes in earth history. However, I think we should behave as if it would matter for two reasons.
(1) To err on the side of inaction if our action matters is by far the worse error compared to acting when no action would be fine too.
(2) Taking actions (consuming less energy etc.), even if it later should turn out that it doesn't really influence global temperature as much as many think, has so many benefical side effects (to energy crisis, pollution, etc.) that the side effects by themselves alone warratn such actions.

Now, back to the level of arguments. Whereas the impact of Greenland ice melting on sea level rise (some meters) is usually underestimated the effect of thermal expansion is usually overestimated. It's effect is more difficult to estimated than that of ice melting. The estimates I have read are usually several centimeters and even in high estimates below 10 cm.

Wolfgang