Interesting counter-argument[1] suggests 1) data was cherry picked:<p>&quot;The alarmistic claim originates from riding the positive phase of the inter-annual, decadal and multi-decadal oscillations typical of the sea levels over a cherry picked short time window of 10-15 years, neglecting what was measured before 1994 by another tide gauge in pretty much same location, and also neglecting what has been measured in the same tide gauge since 2009.<p>Short records do not permit to clear the trend of the inter-annual, decadal and multi-decadal oscillations [4-8]. In the Solomon Islands there is no tide gauge long enough to infer a proper trend. However, the information available permits to dismiss the alarmist claim of 7-10 mm yr-1 rate of rise.&quot;<p>2) statistically not enough data for trends in sea levels:<p>&quot;Also including Honiara II, starting from December 1974 the rate of rise is +2.81 mm yr-1. The time window is now 42 years long, still insufficient, but certainly more reasonable. Considering 60-70 years of data are needed to start understanding a trend in sea levels, very likely these +2.81 mm yr-1 are still an overestimation of the relative rate of rise.&quot;<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;wattsupwiththat.com&#x2F;2016&#x2F;05&#x2F;10&#x2F;busted-claim-data-shows-that-climate-induced-sea-level-rise-didnt-wipe-out-five-solomon-islands&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;wattsupwiththat.com&#x2F;2016&#x2F;05&#x2F;10&#x2F;busted-claim-data-sho...</a>