Skip to content

2012 federal gov. press release overstates projected NY City sea level rise by half, fed. gov. funded the ‘study,’ scientists also funded by fed. gov.

May 19, 2013

July 18, 2012, “Will global warming flood the coasts of the United States?”, James D. Agresti

Impressions versus Realities

The press release for the East Coast study  [portion below] mentions none of these critical facts, but it includes an unsupported assertion that isn’t even from the study, which is that “global sea level has been projected to rise roughly two-to-three feet or more by the end of the 21st century.” In conjunction with this, the press release adds another easily misconstrued statement:

“During the 21st century, the increases in sea level rise rate that have already occurred in the hotspot will yield increases in sea level of 8 to 11.4 inches by 2100. This regional sea level increase would be in addition to components of global sea level rise.”

Based upon these claims, one might conclude that the study predicts a sea-level rise in the Northeast of two-to-three feet plus 8 to 11 inches, which amounts to 32–46 inches. This is not the case, but one would never know it unless he or she took the time to scrutinize the study and a 25-page file of supplementary information. These documents show that the “components of global sea level rise” mentioned in the press release are not all components but some components. This means that one cannot add together the sea-level rise figures provided in the press release without double-counting some of the projected rise.

The press release could have cited another projection from the study that is very easily understood, which is that the total projected sea-level rise for New York City during the 21st century is 15 to 18 inches. This is less than half of what could be construed from the press release. However, one can’t find this projection even by reading the entire study because it was relegated to the very last page of the supplementary information. Moreover, the description of this projection is separated by 16 pages from the actual numerical result, making it difficult to put the two together….

Public versus private

Finally, a lesson in double standards. The East Coast study concludes with a statement that the “authors declare no competing financial interests.” The journal that published this study defines such interests as “those of a financial nature that” could potentially influence “the objectivity, integrity or perceived value of a publication.” Yet, the authors of East Coast study are employed by the U.S. Geological Survey, which is a federal agency funded by tax dollars. This could certainly be described as a competing financial interest given that federal government stands to reap trillions of dollars through global warming legislation.

Tellingly, Obama administration Treasury Department documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act describe “emissions allowances under a cap and trade system” as “valuable assets” that are “analogous to revenue under an equivalent tax policy. These documents specify that such legislation “could generate federal receipts”

ranging from $100 to $300 billion every year.

If the scientists who conducted these studies worked for an oil company, the academic community would require them to declare this as a competing interest, and the press would mention it in every story that cited the study.

Why should the standard be any different for scientists funded by governments?

Five lessons but no answer

So, will global warming flood the coasts of the United States? Despite what many media outlets and some scientists would lead us to believe, no one really knows. What we do know, however, is that a number of previous claims that global warming will cause flooding, starvation, and extreme weather have thus far proven unfounded.” (end of article)


Citation for fed. gov. estimation of $300 billion annual profits in CO2 allowances in FOIA documents:

page 4, “Allocation and Revenue” subhead

“One advantage of auctioning allowances

is the potential for generating large revenues (perhaps $300 billion annually).”


FOIA document, US climate policy assumed to be whatever the UN says:

page 3.: 11/6/2008, “Domestic Climate Change Policy Transition Memo,” Draft 2

“Stringency is the degree to which a policy constrains carbon emissions
(ie, “the size of the cap in a eap and trade system). Addressing climate change
effectively requires that stringency discussions be informed
by climate science. Science provides our best understanding of
the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions consistent
with avoiding dangerous climate change
of the UNFCCC, its stringency should
be aligned with the emissions guideposts
put forth by the scientific community.”
Ed. note: What this means: UN personnel are unelected, unaccountable, and above all laws. A legal mafia.
They can for example put US taxpayer money given to them in personal bank accounts
without consequence, or spend the money redecorating
a second home–this has actually happened and without consequence:
4/16/09,Report: U.N. spent U.S. funds on shoddy projects,” USA Today, Ken Dilanian
Federal prosecutors in New York City were forced to drop criminal and civil cases
The Afghanistan country director for the U.N. Office for Project Services
(UNOPS), which served as the contractor on the project 

for the U.N. Development Program (UNDP), spent about
$200,000 in U.S. money to renovate his guesthouse.Witness names were withheld by USAID.”…

Do UN “agencies have immunity “if they siphon (their U.S. grants)

all off into Swiss banks? Is that accurate?They will
be totally immune, no matter what they do with the money?”
“My understanding is, yes,” Gambatesa replied.” (item near end).
Ed. note: The original mafia wishes they dreamed up anything this good.


US government press release citing NY City sea level cited at top of post:

6/24/12, “Sea Level Rise Accelerating in U.S. Atlantic Coast,” USGS, US Dept. of Interior

“During the 21st century, the increases in sea level rise rate that have already occurred in the hotspot [east coast NC to Maine] will yield increases in sea level of 8 to 11.4 inches by 2100.  This regional sea level increase would be in addition to components of global sea level rise.”


“Just Facts,” Assertions (climate related):

*Worldwide, sea level is not evenly distributed like it is in small bodies of water such as lakes. For instance, the sea level in the Indian Ocean is about 330 feet below the worldwide average, while the sea level in Ireland is about 200 feet above average. Such variations are caused by gravity, winds, and currents; and the practical effects of these phenomena are dynamic. For example, between 1992 and 2010, sea level rose by about 6 inches in the tropical Western Pacific while falling by about the same amount in San Francisco.[228]

* The average global sea level has been generally rising since 1860 or earlier, which is about 45 years before surface temperatures began to rise and 75 years before man-made emissions of CO2 reached 1% of natural emissions.[229] [230] [231]

* If the trend of the 20th century continues, the average worldwide sea level will rise by about 7 inches (18 cm) during the 21st century. The 2007 IPCC report uses certain models that project an acceleration of this trend, and the report predicts sea level increases ranging from 7 to 31 inches (18-79 cm) from 1990 to 2100.[232]”…


About Just Facts and Mr. Agresti

From → Uncategorized

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: