Looks like typical cherry-picked anti-global-warming denialism to me. Take, for example, this quote: > The chart also reveals the two outliers of the group: S

Looks like typical cherry-picked anti-global-warming denialism to me. Take, for example, this quote: > The chart also reveals the two outliers of the group: Stockholm and Galveston, Texas. They both show a distinct cycle of ups and downs with no obvious relation to CO2 levels. (Stockholm's gauge has recorded a declining sea level trend.....at -14.3 inches per century, as of the end of 2014.) Stockholm is in an area of post-glacial rebound. It makes no sense to include this as a measure of global sea level. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264200132_Long-term_sea_level_trends_Natural_or_anthropogenic https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264200132_Long-term... is a paper I found which does the same analysis of tidal stations, but with a Glacial Isostatic Adjustment and a longer baseline. It's a much more thorough piece. One of points made is: > These results confirm Meyssignac et al. [2012] observations that the sea level fluctuations in the Tropical Pacific are due mostly to the internal modes of ocean variability. I bring it up because c3headlines.com page points to the lack of rise in the Pacific Islands as evidence against global sea level rise, instead of modeling both natural and anthropogenic effects. It concludes: > A strong external anthropogenic trend is at least 1 mm/yr in GMSLR that is more than half of the total observed sea level trend during the XXth century. and it gives pointers to many other studies of the same topic, also based on a more extensive analysis of the tidal records. The comments and method of analysis reveal a much better understanding of the details and limitation of the results than the low-quality report that user "waterrising" linked to.