They were not made to withstand what hit them that day. They were made to withstand far smaller planes moving at slower speeds. They were made to withstand bomber planes moving relatively slowly, not huge passenger planes at high speed.

Yes, he gained additional credibility back when he fully supported the BEST (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature) project and promised to accept the results no matter what they showed... until the results didn't match his expectations and he quickly rejected them.

What a lovely and credible guy!

Yes, it's the Oregon Petition again, where the likes of engineers and maths teachers are listed. Since when was an engineer considered to be a scientist?

Who cares what an engineer thinks about global warming? Do you ask a plumber for advice on how to fix your car instead of a mechanic?


Great, but where are the published scientific papers with predictions? Your list seems to consist of things like random people making a comment or journalists writing an article. You don't measure the science by what is done outside of the scientific method.

You generally seem to have an issue. You seem to be listing all kinds of irrelevant things. The fake Oregon Petition, a list of predictions that aren't actual scientific predictions, etc.


Again, great, but what does this have to do with the actual science?

The scientific consensus is a perfectly valid argument to regular people who want to know what the science says. Can you mention any respected scientific organizations that reject global warming? If not, why not? Are respected groups like famous journal "Nature" taking part in a massive conspiracy?

What cases of fraud?

The hockey stick has been independently verified plenty of times.

What e-mails? The ones in the fake controversy "Climategate" where the science-opponents had to resort to fake quotes and such to create a fake controversy?

It has been warming in the past 20 years as well, sorry.

A rather poor list.


Fraud on the part of those who reject the science doesn't exactly refute the science, I'm afraid.


The hockey stick has been verified multiple times by independent studies. McIntyre tried to refute it, but failed.


Which ones, and how does it matter?


This is false. There has indeed been warming in the past 20 years.


They do not refute the consensus. On the contrary. But I know this claim is being pushed by people who either misrepresent or do not understand the experiments.


What public warnings?


What does this have to do with the consensus on actual climate science? Never mind the fact that you are wrong. These surveys have not been refuted.


There was no admission of a lower climate sensititivty. What they did was to adjust the range back to a previous range.


Who made this change, and where? Even the latest report from the IPCC uses the term "Global Warming."


How is an average global temperature against the laws of thermodynamics?

I'm not sure what you are saying about the ocean. Is energy going into the ocean or not? If it is, why is the concept of energy going into the ocean flawed?


Actually, the latest report (AR5) adjusted the range back to what it was in previous reports. It was changed in AR4. And the change was far from "considerable."


Yes, the sun influences the climate. Your point being? Do you even know what the science says about the sun's role?


And?


How so?


Such as?


Actually, I do. The scientific consensus is the best way for regular people to know the current status of the science.


No, it has to do with the combined results of scientific research.

What do you think about the claim that the aim of the Norwegian CPS is to create serial killers by kidnapping children from their parents, placing them with homosexuals and having them sexually abused, TECSHARE?

Do you have any actual arguments, or just the regular "I know the facts aren't on my side so I'll just attack instead"?

Is this satire? Homosexuals turning people into serial killers! Wow.

Why are you so focused on homosexuals?

Which farm was this, and what are your sources?

It would be nice to be able to verify a claim in this thread for once. It's really funny to see people accusing those who don't ignore factual information of uncritically accepting the authorities' version of thing, while they themselves at the same time automatically believe anything and everything as long as it's anti-CPS.

It's interesting that both of you have  chosen to attack me instead of replying to my points. You two can't even answer simple questions, and you haven't even bothered to respond to multiple specific examples of false claims that I pointed out in your posts.

It's also interesting that Nemo1024 refers to it as a "cause." Ideology apparently defeats facts when fighting this "cause."

This kind of behavior - making unsubstantiated false claims, refusing to back them up, and attacking people instead - seems to be the modus operandi of the anti-CPS crowd in general, so I am not surprised that Marianne isn't getting much traction with her campaign. But it's got nothing to do with people trusting the authorities and everything to do with being caught while making false claims.

I found this thread while searching for something else, IIRC. There was so much misinformation here that I wanted to respond. I had a hard time believing that people actually believed the obviously false claims that were peddled here.

This is nothing but a straw man. I have said nothing of the sorts.

The CPS in Norway can indeed be criticized for a number of things, but the criticism needs to be valid and not based on lies and false information.

It's been a while since I last participated here. Please link to where you said this, and of course where you provided actual sources for your claims.

You didn't actually answer the question. Please be more specific about what and how. Vague claims may fly in your circles, but are certainly not good enough for me. Especially when it turns out most claims from those who oppose the CPS so far are demonstrably false.

Yes, that must be why he killed the entire human population on the planet, with the exception of Noah and a couple of his closest ones.

That must be why he not only ordered but also carried out things like genocide himself.

Yeah.

Have you ever seen a plane smash into a solid structure at high speed? I have. There are videos of it on YouTube. They are basically pulverized.

But still, plenty of plane parts were found at the Pentagon.

I have no idea why you are making a false claim like that. What do you gain from spreading misinformation?

What are you talking about?

Are you saying that you don't even know what "scientific consensus" actually means?

This isn't about who I personally find reputable, but rather about their position and standing in the scientific community.

Let's look at "Nature". One of the world's most prestigious scientific journals. Countless scientific breakthroughs have been published in Nature in most fields of science. Are you saying that a) Nature is being fooled, or that b) they are part of the conspiracy to fool everyone else?

Or the American Geophysical Union - apparently the world's largest scientific society of earth and space scientists - which has published a position statement on AGW. Long story short, they accept the consensus. Are they ignorant, or are they part of the conspiracy?

Of course, none of this explains a strange phenomenon where those who reject AGW will often find the "final nail in the coffin" - a paper from mainstream scientific sources that they claim disprove AGW. It happens quite frequently. There was a new one just the other day. It's a massive contradiction, of course. "Papers that don't support AGW aren't allowed. Just the other day a new paper from a respected scientific journal was published which is yet another nail in the coffin for AGW."

Sigh.

I don't know what these so-called "Warmistas" are saying, but there is a clear consensus that it's warming, and that it's caused by human emissions.

So now you're resorting to comparing science with superstition? Even a child is able to tell the difference: Science is based on actual facts and data. It's verified through huge amounts of research. On the other hand, witchcraft is superstition where all it has going for it is blind faith.

You are basically attacking all of science here, and equating it with superstition. Why am I not surprised?

Who has been "ejected"? Scientists disagree on things all the time. And they settle things by publishing papers on the topic. Thousands of such papers on climate have been published by thousands of scientists, and there is a clear consensus. I dare you to name a single respected scientific body that does not accept AGW.

In order to explain away the consensus, you will need to resort to conspiracy theories similar to "Bush was behind 9/11", "Moon Landing Hoax", "vaccines are harmful and were created to kill people", "the aliens were already here, but the world's governments are hiding it". There's simply no other way to explain away the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change.

By the way, this is a good example of the major contradictions from those who reject science: First it is claimed that their friends are ejected from scientific positions, but then it is claimed that their friends have produced lots of studies disproving AGW. You can't have it both ways. And by the way, Richard Lindzen and a number of other scientists who are still happily publishing scientific papers disprove the claim that you are ejected if you go against the grain.

So not only major contradictions, but also obvious factual errors. It basically looks like you are making up arguments as you go.

The jury is not out on whether the warming is caused by CO2 or not. Nor whether continued warming will have negative effects overall. These have been settled a long time ago. By, you know, actual science rather than wishful thinking.


The science is settled insofar as there is a clear consensus on the warming and its cause, as well as its negative effects.

As I mentioned, in order to explain away this overwhelming consensus where not a single respected scientific body rejects the consensus position, you need to resort to the craziest conspiracy theories.

It's quite similar to how creationists attack Evolution. They use basically the same arguments: "There's no consensus. Scientists that don't accept Evolution are thrown out. Thousands of scientists as well as just about all governments on the planet are using Evolution to further their evil agenda."

What do you mean by "no statistically significant warming" then?


But there is no lack of warming. It's warming at a slower rate, but it's still warming. And more energy is going into the oceans. Have you paid attention to a single thing I've written?

Yeah, the only problem with that graph is that 1) it's from Monckton (who is not a scientist and has no knowledge on climate), and 2) it's completely false (his graph doesn't match the data). I actually linked to a graph for the past 20 years. You seemed to ignore it.

I'm afraid I simply can't ignore the fact that the scientific community overwhelmingly backs the hockey stick. In fact, it has been independently verified by numerous papers.

More energy going into the oceans is a simple fact. You can choose to ignore it, but why would you do that?

I'm afraid I don't know what you are referring to. Please elaborate.

Children are not taken away after "mere psychologist statement" as I pointed out several times. CPS can only take over custody after "Fylkesnemnda" has ruled on the case. Once again you have been caught making claims that are demonstrably false. I am sensing a pattern here.

Once again we only have claims with no evidence. Of course parents don't want to admit to abusing their children. But running to one's local press to state one's case is not evidence. It is just more hearsay. You can't link to random articles with an obvious bias towards the abusive parents.

You still don't know about "Fylkesnemnda" and that a decision there needs to be appealed to the courts? If the CPS finds that there is evidence of abuse and Fylkesnemnda and the courts agree, I see no reason to change the decision.

That's because they are bound by confidentiality laws. They can't comment on individual cases (I can't recall any cases they have commented specifically on in public). It might be a good idea for you to educate yourself a bit before forming opinions on something.

Once again you seem to "forget" about Fylkesnemnda and the courts.

Yes, this certainly makes your claims more credible. I love it how you basically shoot yourself in the foot by posting things like this.

While it is my personal view that physically abusing children is wrong, that is not really important here. What's important is the human rights of the child, and the fact that physical abuse leaves permanent scars. The fact that research shows that physical abuse such as spanking actually affects the child's brain.

Of course, you don't really seem to care about the rights of the child. You think it should stay with abusive parents, and you think it's OK to physically abuse a child.

But I'm sorry. If you come to Norway thinking you can keep abusing your child, you are seriously mistaken. And this I believe might be the problem: People from cultures where physical abuse of children is accepted are perhaps often unable to understand that a country has actually banned physical abuse of chidren.

In Norway, you abide by Norwegian law. There's no point in debating that.

What official notices? From where?

Lots of unsourced claims. Lots of false claims. No evidence. That's a description of your posts.

Which part of this is Norway violating, and how?

Isn't Salby the professor who claims that there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect, and who has been fired for fraud or similar violations a few times (misusing grant money to enrich himself, etc.)?

So, do we believe you or thousands of scientists and thousands of scientific papers? Isn't it a bit more relevant what makes sense to people who are actual experts?

Obama and Merkel don't own their countries like Putin owns Russia. Putin is a near-dictator, and the others aren't.

80% support for Putin? Well. I guess it's easy to get support when you don't have a problem killing your opponents or those who criticize you.

Ok, thanks for the info. It isn't as bad as previously thought then (as in, they are seemingly not sending rich guys onto the streets with no training after all). Of course, killing the guy is still bad.