Most claims about climate change and sea level rise are due to a combination of ignorance and innumeracy. The rest are due to malfeasance and evil.

There is a relationship between CO2 emissions and global mean temperature increase which is almost never discussed (unless it's lied about), however it is pretty well established and it alone does quite a lot to dismantle the climate change narrative.

So what is the nature of the relationship of inputs to outputs in this system? Is it, as some have ridiculously claimed, exponential? Not by a long shot, that would have spiraled out of control long before we were here. Is it at least polynomial, meaning a constant in the exponent instead of a variable as in the exponential case? It's not polynomial. Okay, well then surely it's linear, temperature increases scale right with CO2 emissions? Not even linear. The indisputable fact is that the relationship between inputs and outputs in this system is logarithmic.

If you've ever seen a plot of ln(x) you know what this looks like, early on you will see massive changes in the dependent variable, in this case temperature rise, due to small changes in the independent variable, CO2 emissions, but very soon it plateaus out and it actually gets very difficult to get more increase, in fact you have to double the input to see a linear increase in the output.

We will soon hit a point where in order to squeeze another fraction of a degree centigrade increase out we would have to double our global CO2 emissions, which would be impossible for all practical purposes. It's one thing to go from a pre-industrial, agrarian society to where we are now, a lot of doublings took place in that time, it's quite another thing to go from where we are now to literally double the capacity to CO2 output, never will happen.

The run away climate change models rely on specific assumptions about feedback mechanisms which we don't know to hold true and the consensus we hear about among climate scientists is with these assumptions granted. If those assumptions don't hold, and more than a few claim that they don't, there will be a point at which temperature increases flatten out.

None of this even takes solar activity into account, which is about to start waning by some accounts, which if it does we actually would have hoped to get as much warming in as possible, because solar minima are correlated with decreased agricultural output and falling populations.