I think
the Lukewarmers I know have something to contribute, something positive.
The number of hard - core CO2 alarmists is quite small, but
lukewarmers know that any disagreement with them is likely to have unfortunate consequences.
Not exact matches
Remember,
Lukewarmer san, you're in the middle — which means you really
know very little despite your protestations.
«As you
know, many skeptics in these here parts are «
lukewarmers», who agree that CO2 has some effect, but not the effect that «the consensus» has been selling us for decades.»
Lukewarmers want to have it both ways; we
know enough to do something, but not too much.
I'm probably luke - or - lower, in that even
lukewarmers, the prominent, seem mostly atmosphere workers, not
knowing Holocene geology all that much.
willard, you prove here that you
know just as much about
lukewarmers and their ideas as you do about most subjects upon which you pontificate.
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.
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.....
Readers will
know that as a
lukewarmer, I have as little patience with outright CO2 warming deniers as I do with those declaring a catastrophe (for my views read this and this).