Sentences with phrase «lukewarmers believe»

We lukewarmers believe that if such feedbacks existed to the significant extent presumed by many, we would have seen some sign either in the historical records or in the recent runups to 400 ppm.

Lukewarmers believe the evidence of some human - caused climate change is compelling, but it is hardly the alarming amount being predicted by the models.

Do lukewarmers believe ECS is low because they trust the instrumental studies more, or do they trust those studies because they give answers they want to believe?

This Lukewarmer believes greenhouse gases may help cause temperatures to be about 2 degrees C warmer than otherwise would be the case, which will cause damage in many regions around the world.

Not exact matches

He described his position as a «lukewarmer», which sounds to me like someone who believes you can get a little bit pregnant.

If nuclear plants were being scaled up globally at the rate France and Sweden did in the 1970s and 1980s, then I would probably be a «lukewarmer» — somebody who believes that humans are causing global warming, but that it probably won't get too hot, or be that bad.

Steve is an admitted lukewarmer (as Jan says a better description is required) and adamant anti-AGW catastrophist who believes the Miscolczian - like - ve feedback of blooms in their various configurations not only mitigate CO2 effect but have causal correlation with ENSO.

Since Ive repeatedly argued that I believe in AGW, in fact all Lukewarmers do, its a bit puzzling why you put me in the skeptic camp.

He empaneled a series of people who ranged from lukewarmers (believing the Earth is warming, but it's not dangerous, or not rapid enough to worry about now) to out - and - out head - in - the - sand deniers.

Unfortunately these lukewarmers say that there is a «greenhouse» effect, but are then very reticent to swallow all the IPCC AGW bullshit -LRB-, you believe in), that is directly associated with this belief..

I believe some lukewarmers question that human activity is the primary cause of global warming, just a cause or possible cause.

You are a Lukewarmer of the «second kind», meaning that you do not believe the Earth is warming due to back - radiation, but you do believe it is warming from some other source, which involves the (perceived) fact that the excess heat can not get out.

Jeff «Id» Condon moderates a small blog called the Air Vent which is frequented by lukewarmers — a group of global warming enthusiasts that believe that CO2 does trap energy and could be warming the planet, but questions the magnitude of the problem and the certainty of climate science.

Lukewarmers of the first kind believe the back - radiation explanation.

More clear framing — e.g. «as a lukewarmer, I have what I believe is a nuanced view on the strength of the findings of mainstream climate science regarding anthropogenic greenhouse - driven warming and associated claims of climate change.

As per Connelley's comment, I believe you'll find Lukewarmers making use of IPCC reports as much or more as those on your side of the fence.

As a lukewarmer, I'm inclined to believe the warming has been due to a combination of anthropogenic and natural factors, and I don't know which is bigger.

«Lukewarmer disagree with those who: 1) Believe CO2 has no net warming effect.

I come into contact with a wide variety of applied science practitioners of many disciplines including biologists, engineers of several flavors, chemists, etc. etc. and I only know one that is not basically what I believe is termed a «lukewarmer» and the one person (professional) that's not skeptical is a environmental scientist (and he debates like a wet noodle, all he'll say is most climatologists agree.....

Georgia Tech atmospheric science professor Judith Curry, who characterizes herself as a «lukewarmer», (someone who believes humans are warming the climate but to an uncertain degree) was not at all swayed by Muller's analysis.