Ok, I admit it:  I’m not really a climate change group thinker or believer anymore , BUT neither am I a  skeptic or climate denier – perhaps I am a lukewarmer,  What the heck is that, you ask???

When it comes to climate change – aka global weirding – I am classifying myself now as a lukewarmer. 

I’m a bit tired of the pop media and group think around climate change – it’s a bit too much – it’s like the environmentalism of the  80’s & 90’s:  let’s do less bad… and if you are not with us you’re against us. We’re about to battle this in Congress when climate science gets in front of Trump’s climate deniers. Oh such entertainment!

Climate change pundits and most scientists focus 100% on emissions.  This is wrong.   Climate change is redundant – it always changes.  And yes, humans are a major contributor – but I sure wish people would stop making us feel guilty about it.   Instead of doing less bad things,  how about we start doing some GOOD things:  like putting biochar back into the soil.  All climate changers keep doing is pounding us with having less CO2 emissions,  having a smaller carbon footprint: stop buying this, start eating that.

Like Dr. Braungart once told me:  if zero emissions are our goal, we should all be DOA (dead).  Humans are part of nature – we’re organic aren’t we?  So it’s quite natural for us to have ’emissions’.  His co-author in ‘Cradle to Cradle’     and partner Bill McDonough just published a paper on a new language for carbon — if we can change our carbon language to do more good, rather than less bad – perhaps we can design a world that will reduce carbon emissions as a by-product rather than declaring a WAR again…

Bill talks about living, durable and future carbon, rather than zero emission.   Here’s a synopsis: “The world’s current carbon strategy aims to promote a goal of zero. Predominant language currently includes words such as “low carbon,” “zero carbon,” “negative carbon,” and even a “war on carbon.” To show progress, according to McDonough, the design world needs values-based language that reflects a safe, healthy and just world. In this new paradigm, by building urban food systems and cultivating closed-loop flows of carbon nutrients, carbon can be recognized as an asset rather than a toxin, and the life-giving carbon cycle can become a model for human designs.”


A solution is presented as a middle path is lukewarming:  Mr. Patrick Michaels & Paul Knappenberger in their book ‘LukeWarming’…

What attracted me to this was  a wonderful blog on the subject which isirreverent and funny:


under construction… :

Governments have been humbled into submission, corporations endlessly greenwash their image and products. Only the pope stood tall and told it like it is.
Like Big Tobacco, climate change is steering us toward their data – and we are entranced.

Countless policies of carbon trading and emissions control schemes have proven counterproductive (Montreal protocol being the exception). Each country that has tried this has merely pushed CO2 emitters outside their borders while they reap $billions in carbon credits within.
Sometimes things pop up on my horizon that makes me question long-held beliefs and makes me realize that I am subject to the pop media & science peer pressure and mind molding just like anyone else – this is one of them = lukewarming.

Climate scientists really are into group think: that’s obvious, and it’s also good. But I think it can backfire and perhaps ease us (unknowingly) into counter productive, even destructive environmental behaviors (eg: full speed ahead on endless GPD growth) if the climate deniers ever get their hands on some red-herring or silver bullet (like their email scam a few years ago) that the world’s warming really isn’t quite as dramatic as the IPCC has been spouting.



They say “ Everybody’s tired of the climate wars. But not tired enough to quit fighting. “ We are Lukewarmers. We’re not organized. There is no motto, no creed, no manifesto. We don’t meet, we converse infrequently and we don’t have a secret handshake. What we seem (so far) to have in common is an understanding that the basic underpinnings of climate science are understandable, well-grounded and not controversial, plus the growing realization that one of the key components of an extended theory of climate change has been pushed too far.
That component is the sensitivity of our atmosphere to a doubling of the concentrations of CO2. The activists who have tried to dominate the discussion of climate change for more than twenty years have insisted that this sensitivity is high, and will amplify the warming caused by CO2 by 3, 4 or even 10 times the 1C of warming provided by a doubling of CO2 alone.  Lukwarmers, for  a variety of reasons, think it’s lower.

Repeated disclaimer: There is a broad consensus in science on a narrow interpretation of human-caused global warming. 66% of climate scientists believe half or more of the current warming period is caused by human emissions of CO2. I don’t dispute that–in fact it would not surprise me if that turned out to be the case. However, there is a parallel Konsensus of media hounds, NGOs, marketers and even a few scientists who have made it their mission in life to exaggerate the impacts for political effect, and it is this latter group that concerns me

There’s a comprehensive list of 13 things that Lukewarmers want to do and what policies and solutions they advocate. I like them. We need to learn from history

All too often, good intentions have unintended consequences. The environmental movement of the 1960’s gave rise to cleaner air and water amongst many other wonderful things. But in the late 1990’s they overshot and alienated many people.  They were thriving on making us feel guilty – as if ‘less bad is good’ type shaming. The seminal paper ‘the death of environmentalism’ sounded the death knell. Long live environmentalism. This may soon happen to climate change scientists’ group think.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *