Here is the thing, that article was based on figures from people who actually do climate research. His source is the ESA.
You don't care about the source or you would have linked directly to the source. Instead you posted an obviously biased article that launches into hysterics every other paragraph. And now that the cherry picking is finished you'll move onto ad hominems....
Now I am going to trust people who actually do climate research when they reach a consensus. Why? Because they have looked at the evidence involved.
I am not going to trust you, because frankly you're on a level with anti-vaxxers, repeating discredited bullshit and misquoting research specifically to boost your case.
You need there to be a conspiracy among climate scientists. You actually have to form a conspiracy of over 90% of world scientists in relevant fields to have your ideas make the slightest bit of sense.
Of course, anyone who is skeptical of shaky science propped up by political agendas is a "denier" like anti-vaxxers or holocaust deniers or JFK conspiracy theorists. Good, insult and belittle those that disagree with you. Silly name calling is the most important part of the scientific method.
You should look up the concept of "group think" and then reconsider whether a conspiracy is required. You've got people with a feeling of moral superiority who think they're saving the world combined with financial motivation to come to specific conclusions in an environment where alternative ideas are quickly vilified or ignored entirely. Like you have. That's not a recipe for good science.
And I see you brought up the ridiculous 90% consensus (Don't you mean 97%) which has been debunked probably a million times by now. That Cook et al. paper has had so many holes punched in it that you could use it to strain noodles. Don't talk about discredited research while bringing up absolute junk like that. Science is not determined by "consensus" and you'd think you'd be careful about using such a logical fallacy considering the word is a running gag at this point in regards to global warming.
And that is just not going to happen, because climate change does not serve the economic interests of anybody.
This one must be a joke. I assume the 100+ billion dollars has just dissipated into the atmosphere without serving anyone at all. And that's the US alone.
You want to say rising sea levels aren't a problem, that is very easy for you to say because you don't live on the Kiribati islands.
This is not something that is happening in the future, this is happening right now. It is affecting people right now.
You're right, I don't live there. Instead of clicking on that silly article that I'm sure is just full of people complaining about how their island is going to be underwater in a matter of weeks, let's instead check the sea level....
To you it is all politics and if we all agree hard enough, well reality will be bent to our will. Unfortunately reality doesn't actually work that way.
Reality? No, here's the reality...
First you have to prove the Earth is significantly warming
Then you have to prove the primary cause is anthropogenic, and not natural variation
Then you have to prove it will have a negative effect on the planet overall
Then you have to prove the negative effect is capable of being reversed (particularly with China outputting more CO2 than the US and EU combined).
Then you have to prove reversing it is worth the massive economic cost that will be required.
Two decades and we're still struggling on the first one.