Lukewarmer

In discussions of global warming, lukewarmer (or lukewarmist) is a neologism that refers to those who agree with the international scientific consensus that human CO<sub>2</sub> is the main cause of global warming, but do not agree with the projected effects of global warming. In particular, they usually contend that the negative effects predicted by the IPCC have been overstated and/or the positive effects understated.
It has been variously defined to mean people who:
# "appear to accept the body of climate science but interpret it in a way that is least threatening: emphasising uncertainties, playing down dangers, and advocating a slow and cautious response." and "are politically conservative."
# "...accept the basics of climate science but don't think it's worth investing heavily today to prevent or limit a problem that will increasingly hit home in the decades ahead."
# "Acknowledge that the Earth is getting hotter, but it's not a big deal."
# "...recognize heating trends but dispute their significance or reject the idea of human involvement..."
Like climate change denial, lukewarmers' views have been criticized, with Joe Romm referring to it as "a dangerous delusion that is based on wishful thinking (or intentional disinformation), not science."
Examples of lukewarmers
Self-identified lukewarmers include Matt Ridley,
Anthony Watts, and Peter Lilley.
Several climate scientists have also either characterized themselves or been characterized by others as lukewarmers, such as Patrick Michaels, Judith Curry, Roy W. Spencer, and Richard Lindzen. Curry herself has also categorized both Watts and Stephen McIntyre as lukewarmers, as well as "climate auditors".Climate scientist Ray Pierrehumbert also wrote, a few weeks before the 2012 US election, that "on the spectrum of people looking for excuses to not do anything (much) about the problem, qualify as at least a lukewarmist". Leo Hickman, in the Guardian, also described Stephen McIntyre and Andrew Montford as lukewarmers, and commended them for "their dogged insistence that climate science must be transparent, open, fair and free from influence."
Views on energy policy
Writing for Quadrant, Barry Brill said that those who adopt a lukewarm position on global warming as their official climate change policy would support "solid efforts to improve energy efficiency, and to encourage promising new technology - perhaps low-emission fuels. A key consideration for any such programmes," he also said, "is that they are likely to deliver net benefits, in any event - even if the warming stops or the causation becomes suspect."

Main Menu

See Also

Main Menu