| || |
Other than Heartland Institute bullshit and Wattsupwiththat out and out lies, where do you get the data to show that there has been almost no atmospheric temperature increase in the past 20 years?
NASA, the Goddard Institute (having nothing to do with the charlatan, Steve Goddard) and the satellite data all show global warming on an increasing rate, other than in the stratosphere, as the models predict.
Most models do show a higher temp increase than is observed, but can't accurately factor in the heat absorption of the oceans, or more correctly the thermal mixing seen in the oceans. Yet.
However, the ocean temp, which is increasing also, as well as temperature induced clathrate decomposition are added warming factors.
Pretty well all scientists are afraid of there being a tipping point. Unfortunately, we don't know what that is, yet.
Of interest to me is that less than two years ago when debating this in a different venue, I easily found funding sources for both Heartland Institute and Wattsupwiththat. That data is no longer available. Hmmmmm ...
As for the hypothesis that atmospheric CO2 causes the temperature to increase, that hypothesis has been confirmed again and again, and the mechanism that causes the phenomenon is well known. However, we're all aware that there's a lot more going on with the climate, in terms of what affects temperature, than simply CO2 levels. So the idea that we need to see a constant one-to-one correlation between CO2 levels and temperature, before we acknowledge that the two have anything to do with each other, is woefully na´ve.
As for models not being accurate, in thread after thread after thread it's been explained, often in considerable detail, that they are accurate and are improving their predictive power over time as more data become available to use to firm up the models.
I think the problem with the GMO thing is not so much GMO technology itself as the way companies like Monsanto have behaved in their implementation of it. Deliberately engineering plants to be sterile so that people are locked into buying their seeds for ever and are losing their family farms and committing suicide in droves because of it, and suing farmers for growing their seeds when the seeds arrived there unwanted and sometimes caused those farmers to lose their organic-farming status, isn't a way to endear yourself to the public when these stories get out.
Plus the explanations of "this is exactly the same as selective breeding only speeded up and done more efficiently" don't really hold water unless someone wants to explain how you get jellyfish genes into an onion by selective breeding.
Yes, in isolation that has been proven, they've modelled that effect to confirm the hypothesis and consistently the increases in co2 have been in the upper mid range of the projections, and the actual temperature increases has been less than the best case co2 models...
I know, I'm well aware of all the games involved in trying to make the models seem accurate, it's mostly by selling package deals, where There is the mix and match of the objectively proven with the speculative aspects of the science. Yes, co2 has a warming effect on the climate, but the degree of that impact has been overestimated consistently.