Very nicely written piece, thank you! But content-wise this piece is typical of the awkward apologetics we’ll see more and more of as AGW continues to fail, spectacularly, on an empirical basis. So we’re seeing more and more of the usual tautological dodges like the “global warming causes global freezing” line, and “though the science is totally settled, oops we forgot to model the cooling effect of aerosols…” and “pay no attention to that thermometer, the real issue ocean plastic waste”. In this case, it’s stated in here that “post-glacial rebound accounted for most of the variation in sea-level rise” (not said exactly how much) and then a number of factors are blue-sky’ed to account for the rest, only one (at most) of which is directly an AGW consequence. The overall tone is to boost and bolster the AGW theory at any cost. But AGW as theory is either empirically false or else unfalsiable, a universal tautology which is always proven right by any observerable event that either transpires or fails to transpire. I’m all for getting rid of plastic and stopping species extinction. But this fake AGW stuff is going to play right into the hands of geo-engineers who are going to trash the earth even more than CO2 elevation (hypothetically) has. The geo-engineering will turn out to be geo-thalidomide — OOPS! And this relentless uncritical boosing of AGW theory will be to blame.