No doubt you've seen 'Investigate's' response to the 'Listener' article on James Hansen's visit... and 'rising sea levels'.  
The Listener is the magazine that, on its front cover in September 2007,  stated:   'YOUR NEXT VEHICLE - SERIOUSLY' - with  a picture of a rickshaw.     This covered an article by Dennis Welch and Matt Nippert saying:  'The global oil crisis will hit home in just five years.  How will NZ cope?'.    Welch and Nippert should know better.  But for the 'Listener' to swallow this sort of stuff and then sensationalize it hits the rock bottom of responsible journalism.  Just as its beat up about rising sea levels does.  
Those of us who live by the sea (in our case 20 metres 'by') are very conscious of seal levels.   In the 20 years we've  been here the sea level has not risen by any measurable amount.    
According to many references 'seas'  (I take it that means all of them) have risen about 2mm a year over the past hundred years or so.   A  minuscule 'straight line' increment.   If the almost zero amount of CO2 we humans produce was having the profound influence  James Hansen and the 'Listener' say,  one would have thought it would show up on the graphs.  But it doesn't.   There is the odd extended red line (like Al Gore's 'hockey stick') indicating that if we don't stop doing whatever it is the doom merchants want us to stop doing,  like driving cars,  and as Lord Stern wants, eating beef... a lot of people will drown. 
I'm not sure who the folk are who are going to stand around for years as the sea creeps up to their eyelids - and they drown.   Not me!  I'd move up hill a bit or build a wall and have a seaside home.  Literally!     
There are many flaws in the 'science' about AGW, sea level rises, and climate change - not the least being that we are not allowed to 'debate' it but must accept the word of  politicians and their advisers.  Others are:
1. The only references used by  politicians and the media are IPCC ones.  Already many of the IPCC claims have been debunked.  But the media and pollies like Nick Smith and Julia Gillard are convinced the climate is changing... and it's all our fault.    Hence the need for an ETS here and C Tax in Oz.   Smith et al are,  wittingly or otherwise, using the time worn  formal fallacy of  accepting as 'gospel' things that have not been proved - petitio principii.  
 2.  Most of the projections by  protagonists are based on the future.   It will happen in about 90 years time.  Really?  Which day?   Of course it was also well documented in the mainstream media (a pun!)  that Tuvalu was going to be engulfed two years ago.  I recently spoke to a person from Tuvalu who said:  ' We've always had tide surges.   Most places near the sea are affected like that.  It's nature'.    Sounds about right to me.
3. Some of the 'future projections', confuse the issue.  Like the ones in the seventies.  We were, even then, being told by  many prominent scientists and killjoys that we must stop doing the things we are being told not to do now.  Like drive cars and eat beef. 
The reason? 
We were heading for an ice age.