the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

The Lukewarmer’s Way

Posted by Jeff Id on January 25, 2013

When a climate scientist claims that 2 + 2 =5 and the rest of the scientists tell them it doesn’t, CS turns a blind eye.   Michael Mann’s hokey stick nonsense drives those of us who actually read math completely wild.  When they add extreme need for compulsory planet wide behavioral change to correct for the  new fact that 2 + 2 = 5, those of us who read math are unimpressed.   Adding the even less convincing concept that “5”  is really bad for your health, education, economic success etc., leaves the ordinarily math-competent individual in a ball of confused tears ;D

However, even in today’s science 2 + 2 does still approximately equal 4, and despite the dragon slayers best efforts, that is more than zero.

A lukewarmer is born.  (link on right)

Based on this reasoned logic, Tom Fuller has started a new blog based on a lukewarmer’s perspective. Tom is an excellent writer and it is worth checking out.


On lukewarmer status.  I still cannot accept my card, not that I would not be happy to.   From my perspective, it would be comforting to accept a middle ground on the matter of climate science.  Who doesn’t like fresh air or happy non-threatening wildlife?  As this blog has endlessly beaten to death, I agree with all of the premise of CO2 warming, I agree that the “recent” data leads to the middle ground,  but I’m not convinced that warming won’t actually be greater than the low trends thermometers have been measuring.   I’m also not convinced that long term trends won’t be less than we are measuring. So my Id is still stuck without a home, however, were I to bet $1000, I would put it on Tom’s side.  Climate does seem to me to have a middle ground with far less damage or consequence than the IPCC has presented, and it looks like GOD might just be putting his thousand bucks on being a lukewarmer as well.

On another subject, we bought a 360 HP Taurus SHO with an eco-boost engine this fall for my wife.   At 18 MPG, it is a bit more “boost” than “eco”.  Our company has a huge parking lot which is “private property” for me, so I have had a bit of fun over the past several months.   I’ve read of some of the extremist climate goofs not lighting pilot lights on their water heaters and not taking showers every day.   I wonder if the stinky geniuses would agree that since I am owner of a “green” company that saves more CO2 than they ever will, that it’s ok for me to spend a little extra on fuel…!  haha.

47 Responses to “The Lukewarmer’s Way”

  1. Kevin R. Lohse said

    Having googled the beast, I surmise that you are still firmly on the Dark Side. As St Augustine prayed, “Please God, make me chaste, but not yet” Well Done.

  2. Hey–thanks for the plug! You shouldn’t downplay your own writing skills (critics do that quite well for all of us…). Your… temper (passion, ire, inability to tolerate fools…) adds the fire that make writing readable and it’s more important than phrasing skills. It’s very kind especially considering on the number of things on which we disagree.

    If my blog ever contributes a tenth the value to the discussion that yours already has I will be content.

  3. Layman Lurker said

    Good luck with the blog Tom. Jeff I think I am with you in that I would feel very uncomfortable applying for a “lukewarmer” card. If all it implies is the acceptance of the radiative effects of GHG’s, then I would have no problem with it. However while I am certainly skeptical I consider myself open to any and all possible explanations of recent warming including AGW.

  4. Kenneth Fritsch said

    Jeff, I agree that my concern about the uncertainty would preclude me being a luke warmer. Luke warmer implies concern with future temperatures while my concern is about the effects of temperature be they detrimental or beneficial. Unfortunately we know even less about those effects than we do the temperature. Additionally I have a major concern that any actions that government might take to mitigate AGW is filled with potential disasters and on that one for me and based on historical evidence the curve is skewed very much towards disaster. Further my concern is that those who support big governemnt as luke warmers are probably not sufficiently concerned about this last proposition and are more concerned that AGW mitigation will detract from their favorite big government indulgences.

  5. Bob said

    I agree with Kenneth Fritsch. Lukewarmer status is a cop out. It only moves in one direction, i.e. towards the negative aspects of CO2. It means that our policy makers, instead of committing full economic suicide, will issues mandates that won’t necessarily destroy the world’s economy, but will be so damaging as to condemn the developing nations to decades of misery and opportunities. A 2 degree warming just might be a godsend for the developing world, but you can bet your britches that no lukewarmer will ever espouse that.

    • Jeff Condon said

      I don’t think it is an all-or-nothing issue. Why can’t I hold the opinion that the earth is warming some and that is a fantastic thing for life on this planet. In my over-studied opinion, the evidence demonstrates that beneficial warming is the most likely scenario.

    • Jeff Condon said

      Not that the government huggers won’t still try to turn it into a regulation-fest anyway. They do that with everything though.

    • Bob, as I understand Lukewarmism (there is no central credo to sign up to…) we don’t talk much about effects, either positive or negative. My personal opinion is based on published and peer-reviewed literature that says that for the next two or three decades overall effects might be a net positive. Because of my other blog (3000 Quads), I believe that even with a low sensitivity, our incredible appetite for fossil fuels will swamp us with pollution as well as CO2, I’m pessimistic about longer term effects. (I try to show there a credible case that we will be using six times as much energy in 2075 as we do today.) But that’s just me–we’ve never had a vote on it. Or anything else…

  6. Kristian said

    Jeff (and the rest),

    I’m curious to hear where you see evidence for warming, any warming, from an ‘enhanced GHE’ over the last 30-35 years in the temperature record. All I see is ENSO effects.

    You say you believe there is some AGW warming. But where specifically do you see this?

    • Jeff Condon said


      You have to parse my comments with care. I did not claim that there was AGW related warming in the record, only that there is some warming. There is quite obviously some CO2 signal in the warming, but the level is somewhere between immeasurably small with our current systems and bigger than measured. Independently of observation, a positive warming effect over what we would be experiencing is happening. The question is whether added warmth is 0.001 C/decade or 0.4 C/decade.

      So far the total warming by everything combined has caused literally zero harm, and the extra CO2 seems to have been solidly beneficial to quality of life.

  7. Kenneth Fritsch said

    I think a lot of speculation on the use of energy and the major sources of energy that the world will have in 50 years is just speculation. Now if we were to attempt to steer the outcome by government policy we would be wedded to a given outcome – or something less because governments traditional do not admit mistakes readily or change course and are subject to unintended consequences. On the other hand, if we allow man’s imagination, ingenuity and abilities to adapt to work, the outcome would be difficult to predict but I would predict it would much better than the stagnant government approach.

    There is no doubt that the use of energy is a leading indicator of how well our economies are advancing and if we look to grow and increase our standards of living I think our consumption of energy will have to grow and grow a lot. I do not believe everyone and particularly in intellectual circles want to see the economies of the world grow and standards of living increase and in fact see level or shrinking economies as at least a partial answer to pollution and AGW. I think Europe may be a shining example of how to cut GHG emissions by shrinking the economy. And unfortunately the US is there with pencil and paper taking notes.

  8. Kenneth Fritsch said

    Here is a link that shows overall the world energy consumption growth and per capita growth and by source of energy.

    Here is a link to BP’s view of energy consumption in the next 20 years with a reasonable historical perspective and the link of energy consumption to industrialization and increasing standards of living. It also shows the rapid increase in energy to produce a unit of GDP when a country initially becomes industrialized and then decreases as the country increases the service sector of the economy. It shows how from historical data we can expect overall lower energy intensity going forward and a convergence of the intensity by country.

    And, of course, I could not resist extracting this statement:

    “Economic system: countries which industrialised under central planning tend to exhibit very high energy intensity, first because resource allocation is not governed by price signals, but also because there is an ideological bias toward heavy industry, and administrative enforcement of this bias is unchecked by market mechanisms such as prices or competition. The former Soviet Union (FSU) and Russia are a case in point, but the Chinese path is impressive as well.”

  9. Kenneth Fritsch said

    An example of unintended consequences of government subsidies for renewables – or maybe not so uninteneded.

  10. Robert Austin said

    I rode a bicycle to work for 20+ years and worked out of my home for ten years before retiring. I feel that I have earned more than enough green points to feel no guilt in cutting loose with my 300C Hemi when I have the urge. For those curious as to how much fuel is used in such abuse, I took my car to the drag strip and checked the fuel consumption. So each run is composed of full throttle to about 100 mph, let off, brake and cruise back for maybe 3/4 of a mile. Over 24 such runs, the reading was 16 mpg (Imperial). I really thought that it would be much less. So enjoy that SHO, you only live once.

    • Kenneth Fritsch said

      Robert I suspect your green period may have more to do with either frugality or your wanting to get proper exercise, but you do sound a little like those greens who take lots of airplane trips and excusing and relieving the guilt by (saying they are) buying carbon credits.

      • Robert Austin said

        You are correct, I never rode a bicycle for “green” purposes, I rode to save money, to get exercise and simply because I enjoyed it. But I do enjoy shoving my bicycle riding credentials in the face of soi-disant greens who criticize me for driving a guzzler rather than a Prius. So you read me wrong, I have zero guilt about my consumption and it has nothing to do with my perceived net surplus of green points. On the contrary, I consider the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere to be a net benefit to mankind and for years I was derelict in my duty to increase the CO2 concentration.

        • Kenneth Fritsch said

          Robert, I said sound like. It was obvious that you have no green guilt and to be quite frank I do not think that many who use the “I’ll buy carbon credits” gambits do either. They say it simply to get the public or those who would call themhypocrites off their case.

  11. […] The Lukewarmer’s Way ( […]

  12. daved46 said

    I can go along with a lukewarmer position to some extent, but I tend to be skeptical of it too. The problem is that I know of know refutation of theories like Willis Eschenbach’s theory of negative feedback via convection. Nor is his the only version which can be imagined. Given that the earth has been able to avoid runaway temperatures for billions of years, I’m pretty sure some such mechanism is reality. And in that case there is not going to be any problem via AGW. If the CAGW crowd want to make any inroads in my skepticism, they’re going to have to take on negative feedback theories on directly. If a serious attempt to do this has already been made, let me know where to go to read it. – Dave Dardinger

    • Paul_K said

      You are right to be intelligently skeptical of any and every position on climate science, but you are setting up your own strawman here. I know of no scientists, be they skeptic, lukewarmers, AGWers,CAGWers or bushbaptists, who reject evaporative and convective cooling. Equally, there is no question that the total feedback is negative. This is not something that is in dispute.
      The “Planck response” establishes a large negative feedback of somewhere around -3.3 W/m2/deg K. The dispute about climate sensitivity relates only to how this is moderated by other temperature-dependent effects. However it is moderated, the final answer still has to come out to be a negative total feedback. This is not controversial, honestly. Only skydragons and non-scientists would tilt at this particular windmill.

  13. ThinkingHeretic said

    I re-comment (having already commented @ Tom’s.
    The 4°C comes from another commenter, who seems to have studied (researched? – but I shan’t use argumentum ad verecundiam)

    IFF the 4°C is even approximately right (say ±50% or ±2°C), then 0.6 or 0.7°C warming looks a little …. shall we say “shonky”.
    Also, most (all?) of the positive (upward) “corrections” are current/recent, most (all?) of the negative (downward) “corrections” are old/historical. You tell me what effect that has!
    Also, the “Keeper of the Record” is an activist who has shown himself ready to be arrested – and you think he wouldn’t stoop to …. (?). His acolyte reveals his true colors every day at RealClimate.
    Come off the grass! I’d also be a luke-warmer – if their behavior was consistent with the “science” (private jets, beach-front [sea-level] mansions, avoiding FOI “requests”, “losing” data, thousands [millions – billions?] of dollars from the scam, conferences in desirable spots).
    ‘Nuff said.

  14. omanuel said

    Jeff, I encourage you and your readers to register and attend the Thorium Energy Conference in Chicago on Thursday and Friday, May 30-31, 2013 and ask questions:

    If scientists follow basic scientific principles, mankind can continue to evolve and enjoy life with abundant energy (E) that is stored as mass (m) in cores of heavy elements (Th, U, Pu), some planets (Jupiter, Saturn), ordinary stars (Sun) and galaxies (Milky Way) [1].

    If, however, our government is unwilling to be honest about nuclear energy [1] and to show a scientifically sound plan for disposal of nuclear waste, it is probably in the best interest of all concerned to avoid developing nuclear energy and continue along our present path to the pre-industrial form of life under tyrannical government.

    Why? Tyrannical governments and nuclear energy are a very dangerous mix:
    Hiroshima, Chernobyl, Fukushima, Accumulated Nuclear Waste:

    [1] “Neutron repulsion,” The Apeiron Journal (2012)

    With kind regards,
    – Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo

  15. Anonymous said

    and not taking showers every day? Ohhh… Neat car.

  16. Ok… that was me….

  17. Kenneth Fritsch said

    I noted that Tom Fuller had a piece on coal use in China and their recent pollution problem. I suspect there are a number of causes and the one noted in the link below points to emissions from trucks and buses. If China follows the path of East Germany and Russia the first step toward combating pollution will be in loosening the reigns of a government command economy and then responding to a freer market (domestically and in trade with other nations) that would no doubt change the ratio of the economy devoted to the service and industrial sectors.
    China presents a good case of the failure of a pricing system that accounts for detrimental effects of pollution. In a pure capitalist system of a Murray Rothbard much of this problem would be handled through private and individual property rights. A government imposed attempt at getting the pricing right like the use of a carbon/pollution tax or carbon/pollution credits will not work either and particularly in an economy as closely run as that by the Chinese government.

    “BEIJING: The search for culprits behind the rancid haze enveloping China’s capital has turned a spotlight on the country’s two largest oil companies and their resistance to tougher fuel standards.

    Bureaucratic fighting between the environment ministry on the one hand and China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC) and Sinopec Group on the other has thwarted stricter emission standards for diesel trucks and buses — a main cause of air pollution blanketing dozens of China’s cities.

    To be sure, many sources contribute to air pollution levels that hit records in January, but analysts say the oil companies’ foot-dragging and disregard of environmental regulations underscore a critical challenge facing a toothless environment ministry in its mission to curb air pollution.”

  18. 18 MPG from a Taurus SHO? That’s kinda miserable gas mileage. I got 32 highway and 27 overall from a ’99 Cadillac DeVille with the 275 hp Northstar V8 engine. The Caddy had enough power to put the car into orbit in about 10 seconds.

  19. It’s very straightforward to find out any matter on net as compared to textbooks, as I found this piece of writing at this website.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: