You... really have no idea how to read that graph, do you? Or what a lagging indicator is, I'm guessing.

The fact is - we can see the rate of change of the sea levels start changing in the mid-90s, though the graph you're using compresses the Y-axis to minimize how obvious that is (deliberately, I'd say, given the source).

Which, given its a lagging indicator of the result of rising CO2, makes sense it would happen after.

So, even accounting for the dishonesty of the presentation (and make no mistake, it's VERY dishonest) it actually demonstrates the exact opposite of what you claim.

The graph shows clearly that sea level rise did not change at that location, and thus cannot demonstrate the exact opposite of what I claim. The Y axis isn't particularly compressed and changing it wouldn't reveal anything, as should be clear from looking at it. But feel free to replot that gauge with a different Y axis and show us the results if you like.

Your belief that sea level rise accelerated in the 90s comes from splicing of two divergent datasets. Up until the 90s sea levels were tracked with tide gauges which say ~1.5mm a year on average although it varies depending on measurement point. At the start of the 90s TOPEX-1 started tracking sea levels from space, but the rate of rise measured by satellites was 2x the rate as measured from the ground. Rather than resolve this disagreement they simply cut to the satellite data from the tide gauge data and pronounced the discontinuity an "acceleration".