I'm disappointed in Kevin Trenberth. In his professional work he has been stressing that there is a lot of uncertainty in all the major findings about global climate--and the next IPCC report, if it truly follows reputable scientific work, will reflect greater uncertainty, rather than less uncertainty, than earlier reports. (Link is to Fred Pearce). The more mature the science, the less it knows? Or were a lot of people dishonest about what they knew before?
Rather than face these questions, Trenberth in his more "media friendly" role confuses, probably deliberately, the consensus that temperature is going up with the nowhere-near consensus that human actions are responsible to an important extent (Willis Eschenbach). He has made a name for himself by identifying a specific percentage of a "natural" disaster that results from AGW or climate change. Go on, don't try to kid a kidder. Then he smears any and all skeptics. Grow up, for crying out loud.
I like some of his comments in the Climategate e-mails. Communicating with a few friends, not thinking these messages would ever become public, he says there are big gaps both in what is known, and is what has been explained to lay people. So why not give some credit to intelligent lay people who are trying to explain things?
See also here, here, here.
On sea level, which apparently remains on the shrinking list of "proofs," it is worth repeating that the original, headline-making article has been retracted by its original authors. They didn't say: things may be worse than we said; they retracted the whole thing.