Well, I went ahead and initiated my answers, while waiting for your advice. This may be a little questionable, but I didn't ask the evidence to bear more than it can. As for resources, I used grist.org and Google Scholar, and also paraphrased a JREF member in my introduction.
"First off, I want to speak to your dismissal of solid science as "alarmist rhetoric". If you plan on doing the same dismissal every time I offer mainstream science, this will be over very quickly, as I'm not too keen on talking to myself.
Also, just to clarify - is everyone who says that there is cause for alarm and that something needs to be done an "alarmist"? Where do you draw that distinction?
Moving on to the meat of your four questions. I'd like to give you a chance to put them into context, but I won't wait to get that answer before I begin - do you see these 4 questions as the best evidence against AGW there is? Do they represent the most niggling questions you've got about the whole thing? Answer as you have time, of course.
Okay, question one - "Provide collected real world data showing current anomalous sea levels beyond normal fluctuations?"
As you know, global sea levels don't rise and fall in unison (the locks in the Panama Canal used to raise and lower vessels passing through demonstrate this). In fact, local sea levels are subject to a great many factors, like wind and ocean currents that can have a piling effect on sea levels locally, salinity that effects the density of water, localized gravity wells of land masses and ice sheets, effects like El Niño and La Niña.
A 2006 study using European Space Agency's ERS-2 satellite shows that - in the decade leading up to the study, sea level in the Arctic Ocean has been dropping an average of 2mm per year
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5076322.stm . In the same study, the same satellite shows that "taking a global view, ERS-2 still records a sea-level rise. Its radar altimetry data can be meshed with that gathered by its sister spacecraft ERS-1; Europe's leading Earth-observing platform, Envisat; the US Navy's Geosat Follow-On Mission, GFO; and Nasa's highly accurate Topex-Poseidon and Jason missions. When this is done, ocean waters are shown to have gone up across the planet by 3.2mm per year" from 1992 to 2006. These are real numbers. Real increases, real trends, that just happen to match the warming trends.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/0/0f/Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png
________________________________
Now, on to question two - "Some data supporting oceans acidification beyond normal fluctuations?"
The following papers support the mainstream view that ocean acidification is a long-observed phenomenon, and that it is directly related to AGW. I am including only their abstracts, in order to demonstrate the connection:
http://www.annualreviews.org/eprint/QwPqRGcRzQM5ffhPjAdT/full/10.1146/annurev.marine.010908.163834
"Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), primarily from human fossil fuel combustion, reduces ocean pH and causes wholesale shifts in seawater carbonate chemistry. The process of ocean acidification is well documented in field data, and the rate will accelerate over this century unless future CO2 emissions are curbed dramatically. Acidification alters seawater chemical speciation and biogeochemical cycles of many elements and compounds. One well-known effect is the lowering of calcium carbonate saturation states, which impacts shell-forming marine organisms from plankton to benthic molluscs, echinoderms, and corals. Many calcifying species exhibit reduced calcification and growth rates in laboratory experiments under high-CO2 conditions. Ocean acidification also causes an increase in carbon fixation rates in some photosynthetic organisms (both calcifying and noncalcifying). The potential for marine organisms to adapt to increasing CO2 and broader implications for ocean ecosystems are not well known; both are high priorities for future research. Although ocean pH has varied in the geological past, paleo-events may be only imperfect analogs to current conditions."
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/318/5857/1737.short
"Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is expected to exceed 500 parts per million and global temperatures to rise by at least 2°C by 2050 to 2100, values that significantly exceed those of at least the past 420,000 years during which most extant marine organisms evolved. Under conditions expected in the 21st century, global warming and ocean acidification will compromise carbonate accretion, with corals becoming increasingly rare on reef systems. The result will be less diverse reef communities and carbonate reef structures that fail to be maintained. Climate change also exacerbates local stresses from declining water quality and overexploitation of key species, driving reefs increasingly toward the tipping point for functional collapse. This review presents future scenarios for coral reefs that predict increasingly serious consequences for reef-associated fisheries, tourism, coastal protection, and people. As the International Year of the Reef 2008 begins, scaled-up management intervention and decisive action on global emissions are required if the loss of coral-dominated ecosystems is to be avoided."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7059/abs/nature04095.html
"Today's surface ocean is saturated with respect to calcium carbonate, but increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are reducing ocean pH and carbonate ion concentrations, and thus the level of calcium carbonate saturation. Experimental evidence suggests that if these trends continue, key marine organisms—such as corals and some plankton—will have difficulty maintaining their external calcium carbonate skeletons. Here we use 13 models of the ocean–carbon cycle to assess calcium carbonate saturation under the IS92a 'business-as-usual' scenario for future emissions of anthropogenic carbon dioxide. In our projections, Southern Ocean surface waters will begin to become undersaturated with respect to aragonite, a metastable form of calcium carbonate, by the year 2050. By 2100, this undersaturation could extend throughout the entire Southern Ocean and into the subarctic Pacific Ocean. When live pteropods were exposed to our predicted level of undersaturation during a two-day shipboard experiment, their aragonite shells showed notable dissolution. Our findings indicate that conditions detrimental to high-latitude ecosystems could develop within decades, not centuries as suggested previously."
I could quite easily go on, but you get the point.
________________________
Moving to question 3 - "Show me the data supporting the ice caps are melting?"
I need some clarification here before I can answer, Jacob. When you say "ice caps", are you referring to the ice sheets, or the literal caps of ice that occur on high- elevation mountaintops?
______________________
And finally, question 4 - "If the ice caps are not melting what is the source of the sea level rise? Perhaps you can provide some data that will answer this question?"
Of course, the answer to this question depends on your clarification of #3 above.
I await your timely reply."
.
.