Soros has not backed out of activism. He just recently started the Climate Policy Initiative and is giving a billion dollars to this new entity. Soros is pretty equal with the Koch Brothers in funding policies they believe in. Soros' Open Society Institute is bigger than ALEC and funds all kinds of political activism.<quoted text>
Uh, no. The Koch brothers could buy & sell George Soros & Al Gore several times over. They are NOT the same. What Al Gore does is all in public, Soros has been backing out of actvism like this.
Meanwhile, the Kochs, thru ALEC especially, have virtually taken over the Republican Party, remaking it in the image of their father, the co-founder of the John Birch Society.
You are incorrect about the Ljundqvist paper. Firstly, he's a known denier, or at least one who ignores recent changes, taking a much longer view. If you read the abstract, it sounds like he's comparing 1880-1960 with the MWP. Well, DUH. If 1880-1960 is "today," of COURSE it was warmer then. Then he mentions "50-year periods"; if "today" is 1960-2010, or 1950-2000... again, DUH.
Then you quote th abstract that says temps in Scandanavia during the MWP were warmer. Well, DUH again! You can't just use data from Sweden & Finland & say that's the whole world. Like they say on ESPN, "come on, man!"
Can you answer any of gcaveman1's questions? Where is Phil Jones' Rolls-Royce? Where is Michael Mann's mansion? He's right that riches & fame are available to any scientist who could disprove AGW/CC, & probably to any whistle-blower on any "conspiracy."
If you think there's a conspiracy of scientists to create a "hoax" of AGW/CC, you are PSYCHOTCALLY DETACHED FROM REALITY. It's 100.0000000000000000% IMPOSSIBLE. Herding cats would be WAY easier.
The science is settled that the world is warmer, & it's caused by human activities, mostly burning fossil fuels. It's settled that doubling CO2 will raise temps; we don't know if it'll be 2º C or 8º C; it'll probably be close to ~4º C.
We know there will be droughts, but don't know how severe, where or when. We know there will be sea level rise, but don't know how much or how fast, or whether it'll be linear over time (probably not). We know there will be more severe storms, heat waves, cold snaps & floods, but don't know exactly when or where. Weather will be intensified.
We know methane is being released from the Arctic at alarming rates. It's 72 times stronger than CO2 as a greenhouse gas for the 1st 20 years. There's at least as much carbon frozen in the Arctic as in the entire atmosphere.
We know that the Arctic Ocean icepack is disappearing MUCH faster than predicted just a few years ago.
We're doing a very, very dangerous experiment on the only home we have. Not releasing CO2 in the 1st place will be MUCH easier & cheaper than trying to removing it later.
So you are calling Ljundqvist a denier. How does one get that label? Just by getting a peer-reviewed paper published that doesn't agree with the "settled science?" The 1880-1960 period was the calibration period. If there is a problem with this paper, then let someone write a peer-review paper and they can duke it out. Don't just dismiss him as a denier because you don't like the results. It makes you sound anti-science and that you don't like anyone actually putting out new information.
We do know that the earth is warming. I would say 100% of scientists agree. What we cannot be 100% sure of is what exactly are the main causes, natural, man. With a warming world, you will see changes you listed. It is just not certain how much man is contributing.
And I will ask you, where are all the skeptics' mansions and expensive cars since according to you and gcaveman1, they only do it for the money.