Aqvarivs – I saw a TV show where some vegan woman thought she could absorb energy directly from the sun.
She was a total fruit bat but I bet, somewhere there is a bureaucrat with a budget getting ready to throw your and my taxes at some “scientist” to research it.

Lets face it, we were to harness the power of photosynthesis, we would not need to bother growing cereals for food, we could convert the lot to bio-fuel and forget the oil crisis. Although photosynthesis might destroy weight watchers and all those awful “biggest loser” TV shows.

David Latimer “This is not scepticism. It’s a parallel universe!”

I would like to hear more about this “parallel universe”. Do we have a expedition being organized to go there or even colonise it? If we get there before the Americans can we claim sovereignty over it or will we have to involve the UN?

Have you written a research paper or applied for research funding to further your studies of parallel universes?

Regarding what you said “I was happy to put in hours of effort for this post.”
And “It encourages Col Rouge to forget progress, education and human achievement.”

Since you choose to arrogantly dismiss my “skeptical view” and are so engrossed in proclaiming the merits of your own ”scientific opinion” -

I challenge you to prove, scientifically, that my skeptical opinion is wrong.

By that I do not mean just run off a couple of examples of things you might consider contrary to what I suggest but to actually “PROVE” I am wrong.

I am sure with a mind of such luminary brilliance as yours and a few “hours of effort”, you will be back with a response promptly.

And not being “churlish” about your pompous self remarks here is some research I have done to help you on your quest

home.pacifier.com/~dkossy/MIT.html

Chris O'Neill, despite the fact that John Hunter admits it's correct, you keep raving on about the 0.07 mm figure Bolt cited. You'e also critical of Bolt because there he includes no error range, when Lambert's 5 mm figure is also unqualified.

There are lots of sea level figures available. For example from 2002:

"Relative mean sea levels at Funafuti in Tuvalu have risen by just under 1 mm/year in the period 1977 to 2000."

From the same report:

"On average, global relative mean sea levels have risen between 1 and 2 mm/year over the last century and there has not been a detectable acceleration due to climate change."

These support Bolt's contention that global warming induced sea level rise is not a factor in Tuvaluans fleeing to New Zealand.

http://www.bom.gov.au/pacificsealevel/presentations/Suva_mitchell.pdf

Tim Lambert writes to GrahamY: "It seems that you are so passionate in your support of Bolt that cannot, will not, admit that he made a single mistake, let alone the numerous mistakes he made here."

Conversely, Lambert so passionately supports himself he is unable to admit he is wrong, ever. Let's see how he goes with a simple "yes" or "no" question:

Does your hearsay evidence, that global warming induced sea level change is forcing Tuvaluans to flee to New Zealand, constitute proof of this being the case?

It is not a joke, it is a usual mix-up of cases and reasons while being employed by mates playing near-perfect Aussie-English.

Did we really just observe Latimer state that he only checked 190 papers and then extrapolated toconclude that the rest of the 928 must be in accord, and then accuse Peiser of fraud?

"And then we do the bimbo rock, all around the bimbo clock"

How low can you go.

Perseus, if Latimer finds more than 13 articles that explicitly accept the consensus from looking at just 190 of the articles, he has already disproved Pieser's claim that there were just 13 in the entire set of 928.

"despite the fact that John Hunter admits it's correct"

You just don't get it do you. John Hunter said it was a correct quote but that doesn't mean it's correct. I pointed out how its only possible scientific meaning could not be correct but that's obviously too difficult for BBgun to understand. Scientific logic is too difficult for some people to understand so I'll have to look for documents and see what they say. I haven't been able to find the original document with the statement (NTF's South Pacific Sea Level and Climate Monitoring Project Quarterly Newsletter of January 2000) but NTF has been incorporated into the Bureau of Met which has some reports on its website. One of these reports http://www.bom.gov.au/fwo/IDO60033/IDO60033.2004.pdf contains a section "Historical Sea Level Trend Assessment" which uses exactly the same data as the NTF used (refer to http://web.archive.org/web/20030415153655/http://www.ntf.flinders.edu.au/TEXT/NEWS/tuvalu.pdf ) to arrive at the quoted 0.07mm per year. Only problem is, the report at the BoM arrives at a figure of 0.9 mm per year. (They didn't bother with uncertainly figures because they're not claiming any useability for this figure.) If you read the report you'll see that the BoM points out that

"The UH gauge was designed to monitor the variability
caused by El Niño and shorter-term oceanic fluctuations, for which the high level of precision and datum control demanded by the determination of sea level trend were not required."

So even if you get the right figure from this guage's measurments (which BoM, the current incarnation of the NTF says is 0.9 mm per year), it is still not going to give an accurate long term trend.

So when someone says

"the record for the period 1978 – 1999 does show a sea level rise of .07 mm per year"

they are relying on a suspect statement of claim for an inaccurate measurement in an out-of-date document that is no longer supported by any scientific entity.