In fact his new position is bang in line with
luke warming thinking which I think many of the denizens here would support.
Not exact matches
I
think we live amongst the
luke warm and apostate church, but if I say that I am also «judging».!
However the question is specifically chosen to make (
luke --RRB-
warmers (and the question was directed at Mindert)
think inductively about the so - called Greenhouse Effect.
a) they
think it is a hoax b) they don't
think it is a hoax, put tick it because they are
luke warm, and a negative will give the sceintist a false opinion of their views c) they fully accept climate science, but such a blatant attempt to paint sceptics as nutter it is irritating.
But I
thought that you, Dan, would already understand that about the
luke -
warmer / skeptic position and therefore your surprise must be about something else.
I
think the self - described grouping in the case of
luke -
warmers is more of a label whereby this group can at least attempt to separate itself from the true deniers and those that point to catastrophes from AGW without good evidence.
I
think most of us can agree, even the
luke -
warmers and the more reasonable alarmists among us, that the IPCC should have owned up to the uncertainties with a frank and open discussion.
As soon as you get to policy responses
luke -
warmers diverge but those who also claim to be
luke warmers (e.g., Tom Fuller, Blair King and Judith Curry) all don't
think public policy should be to do nothing.