That's what
makes lukewarmers uncomfortable.
I guess
that makes me a lukewarmer.
I'm skeptical but accept the greenhouse effect, which I guess
makes me a lukewarmer.
Not exact matches
This is not
making a claim about
lukewarmers being «sensible», «moral», «just», «balanced» or «more objective than others».
ATTP, I understand the concern of generalities, but when Dan did the
lukewarmer / skeptic questions, NiV and I also
made similar points.
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.
A respected member of the
lukewarmer wing of the consensus party joining GWPF
made it marginally more difficult to demonize them as all radical right wing science deniers.
But the skeptics and
lukewarmers do themselves no favors by
making it harder for them to ever do so by attaching emotionally - loaded words like «dishonest» in describing them.
As a skeptical
lukewarmer, I still hold the chance that minor mistakes in the process might have been
made, but can see no indication of bad faith manipulation, hoax, fraud, conspiracy, or any of the other silly accusations I occasionally read, mainly elsewhere.
Over at the
Making Science Public blog, Brigitte Nerlich wonders about the origins of the word «
lukewarmer»...
I think this is where the likes of Mosher have been going with the «
lukewarmer» meme from the beginning, DC's digging out the old Ravetz posts at WUWT and various other things
makes it clear that this has been an ongoing process for quite a long time.