Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are any number of articles which give examples of how the popular press got it wrong on a scientific topic. If your conjecture is correct, then the submitter did a grave disservice by dropping a link to a 1950s article without any context. How do you conclude it wasn't an example of climate change denialism, meant to muddy the waters and instill confusion, or a case of simple trolling? "Concern that the natural…
What do you think about tjradcliffe's comments "...we had even less clue then as to how the climate system would respond to any perturbation than we do today, and we have relatively little clue today...With regard to the existence of anthropogentic climate change ["the science is settled" is] reasonably correct, but with regard to the consequences it's complete nonsense"?
Also, "relatively little clue" can still enough to make useful decisions. Therefore I ignored it.
Without knowing which consequences, what am I supposed to say? I see no reason to think the Dutch are misspending their money in building up their sea defenses against likely sea level rise.