Source? Evidence?

When someone says "X", and provides a source for their position, saying "no, Y" with no source, evidence, or even argument is rightly viewed as a very weak reply. Saying "no, Y, according to source Z" is a bit better, but it still leaves you with dueling sources and no reason why the reader should believe your source. A really strong reply is "no, Y, see source Z to explain what's wrong with the source the parent cited".

So... can you give us some reason why we should believe your position, instead of the GP's cited one?

1-3mm a year is totally fine. Triple it even, it's not going to wipe out humanity or be the root cause of anything really bad. If it really gets warm, you'll see a lot more snow deposited in the higher latitudes, less rise. Obama's, Clinton's, Al Gore all have fabulous ocean front mansions.

Here's some sauces: https://www.clo.nl/en/indicators/en022909-sea-level-dutch-co...

https://research.csiro.au/slrwavescoast/sea-level/sea-level-...

https://www.stats.govt.nz/indicators/coastal-sea-level-rise/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_level

> Obama's, Clinton's, Al Gore all have fabulous ocean front mansions.

I see people make this argument sometimes, but all it probably indicates is "mega-rich people can absorb a monetary loss", not "they don't believe it exists".

It also speaks to the fact that "rational agents" don't fully exist in making economic decisions. These are purchases that are largely driven by emotion not logical, I imagine