If I remember my geography correctly, there is no land mass under the North Pole anyway, so if the ice cover melts, the water levels won’t rise an inch. The Inuits can all buy convertibles and cut off jean shorts and start growing vegetables instead of killing all those furry little innocents for food. Sounds like everybody wins with GW to me.
true except for Greenland. But there are a few caveats to Greenland, while the whole thing melting would cause about 30 feet (IIRC) of sea level rise, the whole thing won't melt even if temps get back to Medieval levels. The proof is fairly simple, although Greenland was tree and habitable on the edges back then, sea levels were no more than 1/2 meter higher.
Another caveat is that while Greenland's glaciers sped up a bit in the 80's, 90's and early 00's, in 2005 they abruptly slowed to pre-80's speeds. The faster motion was not going to flood the world either. A final caveat is that even taking all of Greenland's ice and sticking it in the Sahara, it would take centuries to melt absorbing all the Saharan sunshine. The only flood would come from it somehow turning into slush and flowing into the ocean which would obviously raise sea levels. But there is no realistic danger of that and the current trend is the other direction.