Excellent, lets put a price on carbon and let the market sort it out.

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 17^th, 2012 at 3:48pm:

Yes Greggery, YOU don't support the AGW hypothesis.
But you are ignorant.

When asked why you don't support it - you cannot give an answer.

You simply keep parrotting whatever Jones has told you and post us links from WUWT.

The problem is you keep telling us you are not a denier.  That you are open mineded.

You are not Greggery.  You have been shown evidence - but you simply pretend it doesn't exist.


If you want to remain ignorant - that is fine by me.  But don't come on here and lie and say you are "open-minded" or "sceptical".

You are not.  You are simply lying to yourself.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 17^th, 2012 at 4:47pm:


Incorrect.

I've said on several occasions why I don't support it:

There's no reliable, convincing evidence.

You haven't been paying attention.

Try to keep up, OK?

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 17^th, 2012 at 4:57pm:

We are still waiting for you to explain why the evidence is neither reliable nor convincing Greggery.

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.

In the absence of any rational explanation as to why you think the evidence you were show in neither credible or convincing - we can only assume that your rejection of is is because you are an ignorant old fool.


Perhaps you might like to explain to us why you think that measuring the C12/C13 ratio of atmospheric carbon is not a credible way of determining the sources of that atmospheric carbon.

You have been asked this about 5 times now Greggery.
We are still waiting Greggery.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 17^th, 2012 at 6:16pm:



And tell me again, why exactly do I need to answer your question?

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 17^th, 2012 at 6:20pm:

You claim to be a sceptic.
You claim to be open minded.
You claim to be well read on this subject

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.

How long are you going to keep running away Greggery?

You are not a sceptic.  You are a denier.
You are not open minded.  You refuse to even try to understand the evidence that has been presented to you.
You are not well read on this subject. You are ignorant.

If you had any idea what you were talking about - you would explain to us why the evidence you have been shown in response yuo your query was neither credible or convincing.  You would  explain to us why you think that measuring the C12/C13 ratio of atmospheric carbon is not a credible way of determining the sources of that atmospheric carbon.  You might even propose an alternate explanation as to why there has been an observed increase in the concentration of atmospheric CO2 if it is not from the burning of fossil fuels and other anthropogenic activities.

But you can't, can you Greggery.  You just close your eyes and your ears and go back to reading WUWT.

Who do you think you are fooling Greggery?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 6^th, 2012 at 7:15pm:




"16 years"

Tree rings.

Ice cores.