When this NYT article was featured earlier on FR, I went ahead and downloaded the PDF file of this 673 page monstrosity. Now that the NYT has deep-sixed it, I am glad I saved it.
The bureaucrat/scientists whose “work” is incorporated into the findings think very highly of themselves. They seldom if ever admit that projections via computer models are inherently speculative.
Nevertheless, one of the more conservative estimates, projecting a sea=level rise of around 3mm/year, or 3cm/decade, or roughly 7” by the year 2100, shows just how tenuous, tentative, and yet frantically-alarmist these agenda guys can be.
All of their speculations can, and will, be punctuated, adjusted, and negated by future measurement methods, and by the longitudinal vagaries of the next 80+ years.
We have not been measuring these climate values nearly long enough (much less with the same sophisticated, finely-tuned devices) to make such sweeping projections based on such tenuous data.
The nature of (good) science is that it is tentative, and that its methodologies and conclusions will change, often in mid-stream.
Grain of salt time.