Seth Borenstein, AP, LA Times, Reuters range from misleading to false in the sea level racket with billions of US taxpayer dollars on the line

""The United Nations' forecast of how quickly global sea levels will rise this century is vital in determining how much money might be needed to combat the phenomenon....It is a number which will ultimately establish how billions in taxpayer money will be spent."...(7/15/11, Der Spiegel)

7/24/12, "Refuting Global Warming," American Thinker, Dustin Siggins

"In the last few months, two large studies have been published that warn about the dangers of global warming related to coastal flooding in the United States. Unfortunately, the media outreach by one study's authors and the national media's reports on the stories are extremely misleading.

Just Facts President Jim Agresti dissected the reports earlier this week. According to Agresti, "[m]ajor media outlets -- and in some ways the studies themselves -- have painted a distorted picture of past, current, and future sea levels. In fact, the studies actually conflict with each other, a crucial fact that has gone unreported in news reports that have mentioned both of the studies."

What kinds of distortions are present? Agresti writes:

"The AP's claim about "scientists and computer models" predicting global sea-level rises by 2100 of "as much as 3.3 feet" could just as well have been worded "as little as 7 inches."

This 3.3 feet figure is not from the study that is the subject of the AP article[.] ...

The reality, however, is that a 2011 paper in the Journal of Coastal Research explains that such projections run as low as 7 inches. An honest way to report this would have been to provide a range of estimates[.] ...

The Los Angeles Times headline -- "California sea levels to rise 5-plus feet this century" -- is even more misleading...the study predicts a sea-level rise of 16.5 to 66 inches over this period. [T]he LA Times reporter walks back the headline and applies the qualifier "as much as" to the 5-plus-feet figure, but he fails to provide even a hint that this is the upper bound of a prediction that extends to as low as one fourth of this.

Reuters [claimed] that the East Coast study shows "sea levels from Cape Hatteras to Cape Cod are rising at a faster pace than anywhere on Earth."

This assertion appears to be completely fabricated.

The study compares global average sea-level accelerations to those on the coastlines of the continental U.S. and southernmost portion of Canada.

It says nothing about any other specific locations, and an email to one of the study's authors confirms that

• the study "does not make comparisons 'to anywhere on earth'."

Agresti also notes that both studies' own press releases -- at least one of which was funded by the federal government -- are misleading. To wit:

"The official press release for the East Coast study states that "rates of sea level rise are increasing three-to-four times faster along portions of the U.S. Atlantic Coast than globally." This language is easily misconstrued, and this is exactly what has occurred in many news reports. In the context of this study,

• the word "faster" refers to sea-level acceleration, not to sea-level rise. ...

The press release for the East Coast study ... includes an unsupported assertion that isn't even from the study ... [and] adds another easily misconstrued statement [italics in original]:

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...

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.

Along the same lines, the West Coast study's press release states that "San Francisco International Airport could flood with as little as 40 [16 inches] centimeters of sea-level rise, a value that could be reached in several decades." What the press release fails to mention is that sea levels in San Francisco

• actually declined by 6 inches between 1992 and 2010."

In reading Agresti's analysis, I was struck by how these and other studies I've read about in the past really aren't as conclusive as the layperson (including myself) thinks."...

=============================

7/18/12, "Will global warming flood the coasts of the United States?" JustFactsDaily.com, James D. Agresti

------------------------------------------------

6/25/12, "Sea rise faster on East Coast than rest of globe," AP, by Seth Borenstein

============================

7/15/2011, "UN Climate Body Struggling to Pinpoint Rising Sea Levels," Der Spiegel, Axel Bojanowski

--------------------------------------
Ed. note: Billions of US taxpayer dollars have already been "transferred" to various climate industry entities. Certain people expect alleged 'sea level' statistics will mean even more US taxpayer dollars will be removed. Sane people of course do not think this. Three top UN climate officials (listed below) freely admit the 'climate' issue is actually a wonderful redistribution of wealth. Sorry, but most people in the US aren't inclined to sign their lives over to

• unelected,
• unaccountable
• parasites (parag. 5)
  

in the 'climate' or any other field. Unlike Europeans, Americans decided long ago not to live in a monarchy or anywhere near an 'EU.' This fact isn't often reported in the media.

As stated by at least 3 UN officials, the 'climate change' issue isn't about climate but 'transfer of wealth:'

1. UN IPCC Nobel winner, Pachauri: ""I am not going to rest easy until I have articulated in every possible forum the need to bring about major structural changes in economic growth and development. That’s the real issue. Climate change is just a part of it."" UN climate chief Pachauri, 2007

2. 11/14/10, Edenhofer, UN IPCC official, "But one must say clearly that we distribute to the climate policy de facto, the world's wealth."...(parag. 5).
And if this happens,

• "Africa is the big winner, and it flows a lot of money there."...(parag. 3).

"Basically it is a big mistake, climate policy is separated from the major themes of globalization discussed. The climate summit in Cancun is not the...climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War." (parag. 4). Original German.

3. 10/9/10, Christiana "Figueres, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)" said, "This is the greatest societal and economic transformation that the world has ever seen."

• (Figueres' resume, long form, page 5 states she is trained and authorized by Al Gore to deliver his movie, "An Inconvenient Truth.")

Edenhofer, Pachauri and Figueres as UN figures can say and do whatever they want with US taxpayer money transferred to the UN. They're immune from criminal and civil prosecution (parag. 4). They can spend our money fixing up their summer home and we'll likely never know it and can do nothing about it anyway (4th parag. fr. end) ).

We made it clear in 1776 we want no part of you or anyone like you. Nothing personal.

===========================




Ed. note: Please excuse bright white background behind last part of this post. It was put there by hackers.
.