In case there is someone out there who doesn't immediately see why this paper does not refute anything, I will list the problems.
1. Cherry-picking. You can't refute CO2-induced global warming by testing your alleged cycle period against sea level rise. You must also test it against sea ice decline, for example, and land ice decline, and, yes, global average temperature rise. If your alleged cycle doesn't explain ALL of these, it doesn't refute anything.
2. Curve fitting. Anybody can do curve fitting, even UrbaneCowboy. It can't refute CO2-induced global warming because it doesn't say anything about it. Curve fitting by itself doesn't explain anything. To refute CO2-induced global warming as the cause of sea level rise, you have to propose a different cause that actually causes the alleged 60 year cycle. Neither the author nor UrbaneCowboy propose any cause.
3. The Greenhouse Effect. The greenhouse effect is a fact. It is derived from laws of physics that no one contests. Were it not for the greenhouse effect, the global average temperature would be about 30C below what it is now. We would not exist. Therefore, if we add CO2 to the system, the temperature must increase. That's CO2-induced global warming.