“Taiwan sinking: Subsidence or Global Warming Induced Sea Level Rise?“. Anthony Watts wants you to think that rising sea-levels anywhere on Earth are due to subsidence and subsidence alone. Especially in Taiwan. And if anyone, such as in this AFP news report Rising sea levels threaten Taiwan, suggests that it could be sea-level rise due to Global Warming, they should be flooded with hostile correspondence.
It’s certainly true that uncontrolled groundwater (or oil) extraction can produce significant local subsidence. The problem with Anthony’s attempt at misdirection is that this kind of subsidence is highly variable, even within the affected locality. So it’s kind of hard to use as an excuse to wave away regional sea-level changes.
Come to think of it, this is exactly like Anthony’s discredited obsession with surface station temperature records. Cherry-picked instances invoked in the hope of discrediting the wider trend. We’ll be hearing more mutterings on this topic, I think.
Wott's Up With That? 
Anthony asks too much, given this writer’s commonly used technique. An introductory specific example (here, the temple) that is traditionally used by writers to start a more general article (rising sea levels, subsidence, and global warming):
The article author obviously fails to distinguish between past sea level rise (only 10 inches in the past 100 years), and future sea level rise (up to 2 meters by 2100), that Taiwanese scientists, planners and politicians are worried about.
Subsidence due to ground water pumping is mentioned. To be fair, in such a short article, it would be difficult to discuss its spatial extent.
Anthony omits other global warming issues, i.e.:
Will Anthony and his Commentators be contributing to Taiwan’s first climate change whitepaper, which is now in draft form?
I wonder if climate change deniers don’t accept that there were ever ice ages?
It boggles that folk can’t understand that there’s such thing as change.
But then, they do tend to be deeply religious, and that’s all about a bronze age mentality.
[The denialists usually prefer to point to the fact the ice ages have come and gone and were both large changes and natural. Therefore any current large climate changes must be the same natural source, but happening virtually instantaneously for some reason… – Ben]