Thank you for so perfectly illustrating my point about selective evidence taken out of context to illustrate the opposite of the actual point being made. You couldn't have picked a better sentence on that entire page.
The full quote for those that care:
"We don’t need to go into a lot of detail, but you can easily appreciate that sea levels have been much higher than today for much of this period of the Earth's history. Scientists have correlated these fluctuations with changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and ocean and atmospheric temperatures, using methods described in the next few pages.
We also must acknowledge here that some people may argue that sea levels have always fluctuated, so why is sea level rise today a big deal? Hopefully, we can shed some light on this question by looking at the changes in sea level through the history of the Earth, while considering the causes for these changes. But, perhaps the simple fact that seas are rising faster than ever before in human history is enough to facilitate action and adaptation. You also may ask, “What can we do about it?” This question will be addressed in later modules."
Going back to where I originally jumped into this conversation, its pretty clear that no level of evidence will change your position. You ask for conclusive evidence where plenty exists, and treat inconclusive evidence as unimpeachable proof of your position. You are backfilling evidence to support your position instead of building a position from the evidence. You will continue to ignore inconvenient scientific evidence, while stretching misunderstood evidence to the breaking point.
In short, there is no point continuing to debate science with someone so utterly set on their position.
I'm done here. You can have the last word if you want to keep digging your hole.