I'm not a huge fan of CNN or any cable news, but I challenge you to find anything they've broadcast predicting that Manhattan will be uninhabitable during the term of their lease. By all means, attack people for what they've actually said, but the global warming deniers are charging at windmills here.
This is way too easy. Of course CNN itself doesn't make predictions, even they aren't so deluded to imagine they are qualified to do that; what they do is aggressively promote a one-sided narrative, exclusively citing those who ARE deluded enough to imagine they are qualified to make dire predictions about climate change (here's a challenge; I challenge you to find a CNN piece treating a "skeptic"/realist like Judith Curry or Richard Lindzen sympathetically). Here is a list of alarmist CNN stories about rising sea levels from just from the last two years.
Oct 12, 2017: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/07/12/u...nge/index.html
Excerpt: "A new study lists the cities that are expected to be affected by higher sea levels...Almost 200 places may not be livable in the next 15 or 20 years, it says...Featuring places like New York, Boston, San Francisco and Miami, the list paints a grim picture of what our nation could look like if sea level predictions are accurate."
Oct 27, 2017: https://www-m.cnn.com/2017/10/27/us/....google.com%2F
"In the coming years, New York City might look less like a concrete jungle and more like a concrete swamp. The Big Apple could see a surge in significant floods every five years between 2030 and 2045 as an impact of climate change, according to a study published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences."
March 7, 2018: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/03/07/u...ort/index.html
"As sea levels rise due to global warming, the kind of flooding currently experienced only in storms will happen during normal high tides. It's known as "sunny day flooding...By 2050, high-tide flooding would occur up to 130 days a year in cities along the Northeast Atlantic coastline..."
June 18, 2018: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/06/18/u...wxc/index.html
"As many as 311,000 homes in US coastal areas could be underwater within the next 30 years, according to a recent report by the Union of Concerned Scientists...Those startling numbers echo a 2017 report from the same group that said between 165 and 180 communities are projected to become "chronically inundated" in the next 15 to 20 years -- and between 270 and 360 in roughly the next 40 years...New York and New Jersey combined could lose nearly 400,000 homes and more than $200 billion in decreased property value."
April 22, 2019: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/04/22/w...scn/index.html
"Forty percent to 50% of the planet's population is in cities that are vulnerable to sea rise...Without serious efforts to curb carbon emissions and slow climate change, ice loss could become a much bigger problem for the country and for us."
There's a lot more I just got tired of copying and pasting. Clearly, according to this narrative, New York is potentially in a lot of trouble, as early as 2030! But the length of CNN's lease isn't really the point. For years we've been told that the fact that complying with the Kyoto Protocols and the Paris Accords, and building bird-chopping windmills, etc. won't actually accomplish any meaningful is beside the point, it's about setting an example, about leading the way...it's about gestures/optics. So what does CNN do while promoting every story about the pending climate disaster due to hit New York? They move their corporate offices to the banks of the Hudson River. Whatever that says about what they actually believe, it says a lot about what they preach.
Last note, speaking of windmills, if alarmists were sincere about their climate change fears they should be pushing hard for nuclear power, but with very few exceptions, none are. That tells me they are either insincere or not at all bright. Either is a reason not to listen to them. Personally, I'm not skeptical about the possibility of long-term effects of increased CO2 on polar ice -- CO2 has an influence where the atmosphere holds very little water vapor (not much anywhere else though) -- and think that a shift away from carbon emissions over time would be wise. The only way to do this realistically is to transition to nuclear power where we are now burning coal and gas, transitioning to gas as a bridge where we are now burning coal. I don't hear this from the climate alarmism lobby though. Instead it seems to be only about taxes and prohibitions on coal or gas powerplants, ICE transportation, number of children, etc. etc. IOW, a dystopian h*llhole if they ever got power and their way, all in the name of a hypothetical threat to future humans living along coastlines, a threat that moves so slowly that developers keep building along coastlines, insurance companies keep insuring new construction along coastlines, and corporations like CNN keep putting down stakes along coastlines. I'm just having a hard time seeing why I need to pay more taxes, give up ICE cars, and feel guilty for having kids, while Jeff Zucker enjoys his waterfront view from his luxury office suite (while no doubt commuting in some big black SUV).