I happened to respond to a comment, addressed to me, on Judith Curry's Climate, Etc site:
Do scientific assessments need to be consensual to be authoritative?

It was a reply to the ephemeral
     "A fan of *MORE* discourse" April 23, 2013 at 11:28 pm as
to "what would a CEO do" about Hansen's prediction of disaster and only a 25m guard band on sea level rise risk to a physical facility that was  ~120m above the level 20K years ago

My CEO answer is:
     not relevant
and
     the person bringing it up as a sole issue item is
distracting enough to be fired or transferred off into the toolies.
I note that I view your
     "responsibility-dodging no-metric wafflers, your no-consequence
      waffles are not solicited!"
is classic "Belly-Bucking" device: define a tiny sandbox to play "king of the sand pile".

CEO must step
       out of the box
and this event is so far beyond the planning horizon and the
     degree of uncertainty in it and other things is so high
as to  make it a non-issue
      other than to monitor the science to see if there is a strategic change.
Problematically, the science is dodgy since it can't explain
      El Nino, La Nina, AMO, clouds, Minoan & Roman warm periods, etc

Your link to "Sustainable Humanity, Sustainable Nature" conference seems to represent such myopic, tactical thinking by non-visionary folk, as to be pathetic.
"Not fouling the nest" is critical, but that conference looks to be a joke by the skill-less folk who want to be highly paid to micromanage others folk.

As the Pharaohs', the Anasazis', the Romans', the Minoans', Greeks', China dynasties' etc  descendants learned,
     the world changes in unpredictable ways
a.k.a. chaos theory: It is all very non-linear and those who claim to predict the future better be able to generate and robustly test physical theory to handle the past.

Right now, the CEO strategic risks have more to do with
       robotics, nano tech, gene modification, (and escape thereof)
       abandoning the ability to exit to other locales in space,
       the decline in education in the 1st world countries and lack in 3rd, and
      especially, the unstable sociopolitical landscape with nuclear proliferation.
Solving those problems has more strategic urgency than a minor sea level rise in 100 years.