Discussion > Lukewarming
Part of lukewarmism arises in ignorance of the history and social dynamics of 'science-based' advocacy movements.
"Oh no, please don't smear me (as a denier). I'm just a spineless critic hoping to smuggle in a devastating critique of global warming"
shub
I must apologise for making this post even thouigh I have not ready the whole of the thread (I will do). I now see that my post caused Shub to start it and therefore I am responsible not Shub.
I stated that BH seemed to have become a luke warmist blog and not a sceptic blog (not that this is a crime punishable by death) and BYJ was amongst the leaders of that "faction".
BYJ claims that the GHE has been proved in the lab but even his own posts have gaping holes relating to that claim.
First hole; his lab experiments (very sparsly accompanied by proofs) did not quantify the effect. If we grant the basic physics (and so far I do not) the tiny amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is incapable of having a significant effect.
Second hole; none of the experiments he claims have been done have verified "back radiation".
"Bottom" line is that deniers, luke warmers, alarmists and "stealers of women's underwear" are all unable to predict the future because we simply do not yet have enough knowledge ^.^
Dung
The lukewarmist position has it's uses.
For those more interested in the 'climate wars' as opposed to encouraging a diverse approach to climate science, the lukewarmist position is an excellent political tool with which to challenge the alarmist position without questioning the fundamental hypthesis, and therefore posing as the voice of reason.
It seems that this particular brand of lukewarmist will not, under any circumstances, tolerate climate science that does not agree with this hypothesis in case it undermines their case. This is not a scientific stance and is just as much a position of advocacy as that of the alarmists. Even on a blog like this, away from the glare of the media, they will not entertain wide ranging discussion of climate science, and that is dangerous for the tone of the blog itself.
Discussion on a blog should be as varied as the moderator allows and should not be stifled by epithets such as DENIER. That is for the SkS's of this world.
RKS
You are inconsistent about epithets. You are happy to assign them to me for example or to the Yin, and some such as Dung revel in being "deniers".Calling a spade a spade seems a good rule - nobody cares about hurt feeling here. (Cue the normal RKS insults...)
BitBucket
"..."obnoxious warmist"...
Was puzzled by that one too. I think diogenes meant 'abnoxious sceptic' :) :.....
Feb 10, 2013 at 7:48 PM | shub"
Err.. thanks shub.
Having been described as "the enemy" and "DENIER" [full caps as well!] I suppose I might regard that as an improvement. :-)