So Church, et.al. (a bunch of CSIRO Climate Scientists) took...

So Church, et.al. (a bunch of CSIRO Climate Scientists) took every tide gauge going and had to subject the data to Global Isostatic Adjustment (GIA) [their words] to compensate for the fact that the majority are at geologically unstable locations where the land itself is rising/falling and are compromised.

Whereas in the original research paper by Douglas (a Geographer at U. of Maryland) Abstract @ http://www.psmsl.org/train_and_info/training/gloss/gb/gb3/douglas.html surveyed all tide gauges and eliminated those that were subject to Post Glacial Rebound (PGR), leaving geologically stable tide gauges. After analysis of the geologically stable tide gauge data "... no acceleration during the last century has been detected."

Tell Douglas his data/analysis/graph has been fabricated.

Two sets of data (one a subset of the other), two methods of analysis (one involving data correction), two different outcomes ... do you trust the Climate Scientist and their 'data correction'* or the Geographer?

* or should that be data fabrication!