I understand that this is ragebait, but even then, these are not mutually exclusive claims. There being a significant contributor doesn't mean it was the dominant contributor, and you being told things by some people doesn't mean you're choosing your sources well / the same as others.

Mutual exclusivity not applying so much so, that the article you're commenting on downright puts these events into the following hierarchy: groundwater pumping -> climate change -> sea level change. So it'd be a subset of the total effect of it on a theoretical pie chart: literally no conflict in the rhetoric.

Sigh. You made an account for this?

Do you know what a contributor is?

I understand if someone with cognitive issues buys into demonstrable fact denial, but hackers usually are way above that level.

The melting of ice caps, glaciers and others make no difference then.