View Single Post
Old 16th Jun 2011, 07:20
  #8199 (permalink)  
Nemrytter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 306
And I guess I 'd better respond to rvv500 before he complains again.
Yeah, you don't read " pointless " blogs, but can comment about them without reading, great.
I used to read one or two (including some linked to from here) but I gave that up long ago. As I said: Pointless.

Go back and see your own posts about AGW theory being the most very well accepted blah, blah.
Saying that a theory is widely accepted by the scientific community is not the same as "praising it to the sky". Try again.

WGI or II or III are all IPCC reports and all the action is being taken based upon the SPM's. So if WGII and III are crap and come out with lousy suggestions and " findings " it's still crap.
I disagree. WGII is, for the most part, written by pseudo-scientists. It's written by geographers and anthropologists. That bunch of jokers are to science what masturbation is to sex: They follow the right procedure and can reach a conclusion, but ultimately it's unsatisfying.
WGI and WGIII were composed more of proper scientists, so I'd be a bit more willing to listen to their conclusions than I would WGII. Hence why I asked if you found anything in the WGI report; As far as I know all the problems have been contained in the sections of WGII.
Nemrytter is offline