So you're suggesting that The New York Times, hardly a climate-change-denier, got the numbers on their already quite alarmist page wrong by an order of magnitud

So you're suggesting that The New York Times, hardly a climate-change-denier, got the numbers on their already quite alarmist page wrong by an order of magnitude? I'm pretty sure none of the worst case IPCC scenarios consider the total melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.