I've never made any secret that my arguments
WRT policy involve a «libertarian» agenda.
So, anyone can self - identify or be designated as a «denier» / sceptic, «lukewarmer», or «warmist» with respect to ECS, and yet take any position
WRT policy.
WRT policy, I can see a «lukewarmers» way».
I don't think they'd serve any purpose
wrt the policy discussions, specially because I'm not from North America.
Not exact matches
Dear Shail, Kindly read my articles (
wrt your Jeevan Anand
policy)-- «Is term insurance a waste of your money?»
WRT email
policies, this is off - topic but the relationship between records and email might need to be a subject of a future post, since the subject keeps recurring.
I don't conflate mandating a
policy wrt an ECS estimate.
Anyway, Any statement
wrt the inquiry could end up as
policy, so «integrity of research.
Trenberth, Ray Pierrehumbert, Hansen, Mann, Jones... they all have a far greater responsibility to behave at the highest level because the work they produce and the ideas they promote are viewed at the highest level
wrt influencing
policy.
I think the work that Zeke and Mosher / BEST is doing is valuable, but I question the fidelity of the data
WRT making drastic
policy decisions that will clearly have an impact on our economy, quality of life (negative impact), and our ability to help those that the left claim to care so much about — the poor.
I do not believe a change in the
policies and practical efforts (
wrt AGW mitigation and adaptation) in this country will come about just by diddling with the curricula of our schools.
Dear Shail, Kindly read my articles (
wrt your Jeevan Anand
policy)-- «Is term insurance a waste of your money?»