Terms like "denier, denialist" indeed a not part of the scientific discussion, but rather part of the political one. But one can't deny that fact that politics hugely influences our peptic of science and scientific fact. From climate change, to the orchestrated efforts to show that Tabbaco is not harmless, to the lead lobby, to the anti immunization crowd, to nearly any controversial scientific subject, politics influences at the very least the promulgation of good, reproducible, peer reviewed science. In most cases it is driven by money, (simply follow the money and see who benefits from a "denialist campaign") later it is adopted by acolytes who get thier information from questionable sources in the media, in thier churches, in their similarly inclined (and similarly misinformed) friends and neighbors. The denial community (on any subject) can't refute the science and the demonstrable facts, but they certainly can, and have influenced the body polite, mostly negatively. Icarus
This citation is to a NOAA technical report, not journal article. One might not want to malign scientific investigation for 'not doing' if in fact the real problem is 'not looking'. NOAA: 'Nuisance flooding' an increasing problem as coastal sea levels rise We have, previously, gone over the best available evidence concerning Arctic ice extent over the last 100 to 1000 years. Anybody who wants to not look at that is of course, welcome. Does make me feel a bit silly for having gone to the trouble of locating it though.
Just last week, the Union of Concerned Scientists also anticipated our concerns here: Encroaching Tides: How Sea Level Rise and Tidal Flooding Threaten U.S. East Coast and Gulf Coast Communities over the Next 30 Years (2014) Bored of gray literature? Recent journal articles on sea-level dynamics are at your (web) fingertips. Just waiting for an attitude change from "somebody has got to prove it to me" to "I'm curious enough to look for myself".