I find this mordantly amusing, but I wonder how many climate change hysterics will react to it by saying, “SEE???”

The Yale School of the Environment announced this week,

“Scientists have uncovered a “blind spot” in the research on rising seas, revealing that tens of millions of people thought safe from coastal flooding are at risk of inundation. Across much of the world, sea levels are higher than previously assumed and land is sinking faster…

These findings come from two major new studies that are reshaping our understanding of the threats posed by rising tides and sinking land and underlining the imminent risk of inundation facing tens of millions of people in some of the world’s largest megacities, say researchers not involved in the studies.

“The impacts of sea level rise under climate change have been systematically underestimated,” concludes Matt Palmer, a specialist on sea level rise at the U.K. Met Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Science. “We could see devastating impacts much earlier than predicted — particularly in the Global South.”

“Taken jointly, these two papers paint a considerably more concerning picture than either would in isolation,” says Franck Ghomsi, an oceanographer at the University of Cape Town. “We are seeing an emerging body of research that rewrites the story of coastal vulnerability.”

…Data from tidal gauges shows that actual sea levels worldwide are on average 9.4 to 10.6 inches higher than predicted by models.”

If the author of this piece were under cross examination in a courtroom, the question would be: “Interesting. So you are saying that we should believe those studies now by the same “experts” who have been mistakenly reporting results that they now admit were vastly miscalculated. Is that correct?”

There is also the little matter of confirmation bias, which the “experts” choose to ignore. The climate change industry is committed to this theory, and researchers must have been frustrated and fearful.

“We keep predicting imminent disasters and issuing deadlines that pass without the dire results we promised! People are beginning to think we’re dishonest hacks.What shall we do?”

“What we need is a study that explains why our models have all failed…”

“Brilliant! Let’s do one!”

And so they did.

Of course, maybe this one is accurate and correct. Based on the track record of these “experts,” however, basing policies on its results and spending billions would still be a matter of faith rather than science. Or competence. Or responsible conduct.