rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 9:13pm:



Why?  Does it keep you up at night?  Don't you have a life?

You haven't presented any credible, convincing evidence yet anyway.   The logical thing to do is present the credible, convincing evidence - why don't you do that?

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 9:16pm:


rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 12^th, 2012 at 6:48pm:


Never mind.  It will happen at your age.

Just tell me what you don't understand - and I will be happy to explain it to you

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 9:13pm:


You asked for evidence to support my statement that the majority of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is from anthropogenic sources.

I showed your a published scientific paper that reported on the measurement of the change in C12 ratio of atmospheric CO2.

You were shown evidence.
You were shown credible evidence.
If you think that the evidence you were shown was not credible - perhaps you may like to explain why it was not credible.

Denying that you were shown any evidence only makes you sound like an ignorant old fool.

All of the past posts are recorded here to show what you have been shown. 
You cannot deny that you have seen what you have been shown.

If you have reason to doubt what you have been shown.....why don't you explain it to us?

Come on Greggery.  I known it is time you would normally curl up with a warm mug of Milo - but how about you log out of ILoveBolt.Com and explain to us what your problem is?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 10:33pm:



How many times must I answer this question?

Are you retarded?

Pay attention - this is the answer to your question:

I don't understand why you feel the need to have everybody subscribe to your particular hypothesis.  Why is it so important to you that everybody agrees with you?

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 10:42pm:

Once would be good Greggery.

Well - you did answer once - when you raised doubt about why I said that the majority of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration was due to anthropogenic sources.

I showed you evidence to support what I said.  Actual real empirical evidence as reported in a properly published scientific paper.

You went very quiet after that on that subject didn't you Greggery.

Why was that Greggery?

You have still not told us what you find unconvincing about the measured C12/C13 ration of atmospheric carbon?  Do you want to email Bolty about it tomorrow before you answer?

Good idea Greggery.

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 10:42pm:

I am not the one channelling Bolty Greggery

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 10:42pm:

You question could be answered if you could pose it in a comprehnsible way Greggery.

What don't you understand about AGW?

Why can't you tell us?

You seem to understand that atmospheric CO2 levels have risen.
I have shown you evidence, that you have not refuted - that the CO2 is from anthropogenic sources.
What is the next bit you don't understand?

I am happy to help.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 7:08pm:




We're talking about climate, not weather.

Is there anything that you do have a basic understanding of?

If so, perhaps you should start a thread on that particular topic.  Whether it be Star Wars figures, or comics, or whatever.

You don't know the difference between 'facts' and 'hypotheses' and you don't know the difference between 'weather' and 'climate'.

Hard to hold a conversation with someone lacking this basic knowledge.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 10:53pm:



Why is it so important to you that everybody subscribes to the AGW hypothesis?