"Move one city" implies a mass migration, yes?

If so, then I agree that we have solutions. Mass starvation is another solution. But I wanted clarification on what "deal with" means.

I don't understand you. In what why is starvation a solution? Perhaps you believe that moving equals starvation? Either way you hold some very concerning ideas.

My point is that "deal with" can mean almost anything.

We dealt with the Dust Bowl of the 1930s through mass exodus, malnutrition, widespread loss of personal land ownership, and stigmatizing the Okies and others who had to leave their homes.

Is that how we'll deal with the changes to Miami?

Or, look at the Swedish famine of 1867–1869. The government deal with it ... poorly, but it did deal with it.

So when ThomPete asks "Can you mention one scientifically demonstrated consequences of climate change that we don't know how to deal with with todays let alone future technologies?" ... what does "deal with" mean?

Because we can always deal with problems by letting people suffer. That's surely not what's meant, but just what is meant?

Deal with it means to use the resources and knowledge available in this day and age to solve a problem. If you believe that we are today on the same civilizational and technological level as we were in the 19th hundreds then I guess your fear might be justified. I believe that we have come a very long way since then and don't think that moving a city should be an impossible task. The Chinese build new cities every year, so i guess USA should be capable of building one too or people could move to other existing safe cities slowly in a longer time span, without a mass exodus as you call it.

Who pays for it?

The companies, people, organizations, and countries who profited from mispriced costs which did not factor in externalities like the likely need to relocate most of the population of Miami?

How much should those companies, people, organization, and countries be penalized for committing fraud to suppress the true costs?

What is the cost of the emotional distress of being forced to move because of generations of pollution by others?

Or, are those who need to move the ones who bear most of the cost?

You are being overtly obtuse at this point. Have you never witnessed a natural disaster where people homes were burned, flooded or leveled by earth quakes so bad that they had to move?

That doesn't answer my question at all.

Who pays?

And, what do natural disaster have to do with it? We're talking about a human-caused disaster in the making orders of magnitude greater than Bhopal.

Surely those companies, organizations, people, and countries which profited from petroleum extraction, including by telling lies about the impact of their work, should pay compensation, yes?

Or are you one of those people who believes in privatizing profits and socializing risk?

Do you honestly think insurance will cover it? Because I remember Hurricane Andrew, when 11 insurance companies went bankrupt from the claims filed.

Again, we can look to the Okie experience - the Dust Bowl was caused by soil mismanagement by humans - as a relevant historical example. Why shouldn't we expect something like that again?