If most experts in a field believe X, you should believe X unless you have good reason otherwise.<p>Anyway, if that was the argument in isolation, you&#x27;d have a better point. There&#x27;s also the matter of the rapid measured temperature increase in 20th century, glacial retreat, mass coral die-offs, historical records of Arctic sea ice, the body of published peer-reviewed work on it, among many other things.<p>And... I take particular offense to &quot;it&#x27;s not scientifically relevant.&quot; There is a big difference between interpreting information and practicing science. The author of the link previously published an article with basic errors in its science and his two coauthors partially disavowed the work. He is publishing on a non-peer reviewed site with a known bias.<p>And if you want get specific, read the provided &quot;rebuttal&quot; link. It basically amounts to &quot;The 7-10 mm&#x2F;yr claim is alarmist! If you look at this other tidal gauge, it&#x27;s almost 10 mm&#x2F;yr from 1995 onward, but it looks like it may have slowed to 5 mm&#x2F;yr since then. Also, if you go back to 1974 - 20 before the uptrend starts - it&#x27;s ony 3mm&#x2F;yr!&quot;