If only to get the denialists gibbering.  ;)

Who Says There's No Scientific Consensus?
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9kH97WTeuEE/UtV4U1NEV8I/AAAAAAAASYw/YQltFQimS8c/s1600/climate-denial-pie-chart-small.jpg

this will bring out the loonies .....  ;D ;D

# wrote on Jan 15^th, 2014 at 11:09am:

If only to get the denialists gibbering.  ;) Who Says There's No Scientific Consensus? http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9kH97WTeuEE/UtV4U1NEV8I/AAAAAAAASYw/YQltFQimS8c/s1600/climate-denial-pie-chart-small.jpg

Citations please....
Or else am I to be bowled over and driven to submission by a blue circle.

John Smith wrote on Jan 15^th, 2014 at 11:12am:

this will bring out the loonies .....  ;D ;D

Speaking of which:

namnugenot wrote on Jan 15^th, 2014 at 1:47pm:

# wrote on Jan 15th, 2014 at 11:09am: If only to get the denialists gibbering.  ;) Who Says There's No Scientific Consensus? http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9kH97WTeuEE/UtV4U1NEV8I/AAAAAAAASYw/YQltFQimS8c/s1600/climate-denial-pie-chart-small.jpg Citations please.... Or else am I to be bowled over and driven to submission by a blue circle.

The loony known as namnugenot evidently doesn't know how to click on a link.  ::)

Wow a link embedded in a blue blob that leads to a miniature blue blob.

I AM impressed.

lee wrote on Jan 15^th, 2014 at 3:04pm:

Wow a link embedded in a blue blob that leads to a miniature blue blob. I AM impressed.

In this forum's software, clicking on a graphic will do that. So the loony known a lee is another that doesn't know what a link looks like.  ::)

'In this forum's software, clicking on a graphic will do that'

So it the loopy site software?

I copy and paste the link into a new window and get the same result.

Paedos play pretend..

lee wrote on Jan 15^th, 2014 at 3:33pm:

'In this forum's software, clicking on a graphic will do that' So it the loopy site software? I copy and paste the link into a new window and get the same result.

OK, I've had enough laughs. The link to the source is the headline. Do what you like with the graphic, it won't do you any good.

That blog post links to a Grist article, with a slightly less kind headline: This chart makes it painfully obvious that climate deniers are ridiculous
That article links, in turn, to the site of James Lawrence Powell, from where you can download data to your heart's content. Mr Powell:
Quote:

... was born in Berea, Kentucky and graduated from Berea College with a degree in Geology. He holds a Ph.D. in Geochemistry from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and several honorary degrees, including Doctor of Science degrees from Berea College and from Oberlin College. He taught Geology at Oberlin College for over 20 years. He served as Acting President of Oberlin, President of Franklin and Marshall College, President of Reed College, President of the Franklin Institute Science Museum in Philadelphia, and President and Director of the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History. President Reagan and later, President George H. W. Bush, appointed Powell to the National Science Board, where he served for 12 years. ...

One line from his site caught my eye:
Quote:

The scientific literature since 1991 contains a mountain of evidence confirming man-made global warming as true and no convincing evidence that it is false. Global warming denial is a house of cards.

In case you missed them, there are links in what I wrote above.

James Powell, the author of the piece, says-

“To be classified as rejecting, an article had to clearly and explicitly state that the theory of global warming is false or, as happened in a few cases, that some other process better explains the observed warming. Articles that merely claimed to have found some discrepancy, some minor flaw, some reason for doubt, I did not classify as rejecting global warming.”

“Articles about methods, paleoclimatology, mitigation, adaptation, and effects at least implicitly accept human-caused global warming and were usually obvious from the title alone.”

Says it all really.

lee wrote on Jan 16^th, 2014 at 11:45am:

James Powell, the author of the piece, says- “To be classified as rejecting, an article had to clearly and explicitly state that the theory of global warming is false or, as happened in a few cases, that some other process better explains the observed warming. Articles that merely claimed to have found some discrepancy, some minor flaw, some reason for doubt, I did not classify as rejecting global warming.” “Articles about methods, paleoclimatology, mitigation, adaptation, and effects at least implicitly accept human-caused global warming and were usually obvious from the title alone.” Says it all really.

But your wrong because he has a blue circle. All hail the blue circle...

From the Guardian And Dana Nuccitelli-

'Based on his comments in that 1989 talk, I pieced together what Lindzen's global temperature prediction might have looked like, had he made one, and compared it to the prediction made by prominent NASA climate scientist James Hansen in a 1988 paper (like Lindzen, Hansen is now retired).

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jan/06/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism

Just love these Alarmists. If something doesn't exist; create it.

Lee likes em young!!

Then you are not in the running- sorry to disappoint you.

lee wrote on Jan 16^th, 2014 at 12:05pm:

Then you are not in the running- sorry to disappoint you.

Lee doesnt like being known as a paedo  :-[

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 16^th, 2014 at 12:09pm:

[quote author=leeforward link=1389748198/13#13 date=1389837912]Then you are not in the running- sorry to disappoint you.

Lee doesnt like being known as a paedo  :-[/quote]
Deathridesahorse, enough with the spamming! Stop or be banned.