The biggest problem i have is being told what historical proxy data is deemed acceptable and which is not.
There is a plethora of papers which are clear in that sea levels have been higher.
I think anyone who dispute observational or historical evidence proxies but accepts "other" proxy data is the "denier"
We actually do know that sea levels have been higher at many locations around the globe.
We only have to look at Greenland.
We have been asked for DECADES to accept Greenland as some form of proxy of global temperatures (aka sea rise). And many here have pushed that line.
But then they also pass off greenland data as being isolated anytime you use the same data source to show that warming rates have been far higher than present.
Take a pill chill guys. We know sweet @&*# @* about our planet
Someone posted something on sea level "rise rates"
What a crock statement is that. Please post up the proxy data that come from that shows the actual sea levels. I will then post up the proxy data that makes that chart posted earlier by someone look like a teeny weeny little piss stream.
