Similar phrases are used to introduce many scientist quoted by those who disagree with the prevailing science.
Fact is that he is one ocean scientist and not a particularly outstanding one though he did do some work on the distribution of water in the oceans. His conclusions about historic sea levels are based on very little but more importantly his claims are contradicted by further observations by hundreds of other scientists.
Science is not about personality but about the coalescence of theory and observation. On this count he is an abject failure.
Furthermore his qualifications in oceanology and geology do not afford him any credibility whatsoever in atmospheric or climate science. Hence he has no place projecting the progression of the climate.
Those who doubt the science uncritically latch onto anything they see that might support their position while they completely ignore the vast body of work that contradicts their prejudice. Just like Bladerunner's "Good article" comment. In fact it is a very poor article that effectively doesn't reference anything beyond itself.
Clearly the projections of sea level rise into the future are based on models. That is all anyone can offer. His predictions are nothing but conjecture. He obviously cannot provide real world observations of the future.
Moreover his supposed observations of the past contradict the verifiable evidence.
The vast majority of the rise is driven not by the melting of the ice but by thermal expansion of the water itself. Do you really think vast teams of scientists dedicated to the task of projecting our future don't understand the simple high school physics of latent heat?
Unfortunately many jump onto the bandwagon and try to attribute sea level rise to things are are caused by many other factors. It is rightly pointed out that extraction of ground water is a major contributor to the sinking of land in many places, including London.
However this in no way discredits the underlying fact that the sea level is rising steadily. His comment about Venice is facile.
Utter rubbish.
Even if a the whole graph was moved up by 2.3 mm it would still show a rise of the same annual magnitude.
The satellite data is calibrated from land based gauges across the planet. The movements of the land are also taken into account.
BTW Did you know that that North America is still rebounding upwards from the removal of the weight of the icecap at the end of the last ice age about ten thousand years ago?
