The website, despite its name, is dedicated to advancing the activist point of view on climate change and apparently they feel threatened by Lukewarmers as much as by skeptics. (I have often pointed out the similarity of climate activists to both medieval priests, who hated heretics and agnostics far more than non-believers and atheists, and the hard Left of the 20th Century, who considered Trotsky a worse enemy than Rockefeller–careful where you put that axe, now.)
As they have with most of the issues I’ve seen covered there, they manage to get things wrong, distort other things and slant their coverage rather abominably.
They single out Matt Ridley as a Lukewarmer and focus heavily on the essay that I just spent the past 10 posts critiquing. This is probably because they don’t want to cross real Lukewarmers such as Lucia Liljegren or Steve Mosher, either of whom could tie them up in knots without putting down their knitting needles (in Lucia’s case) or cellphone (ubiquitously present in Mosher’s hand).
They accuse Ridley of writing things he did not write and seem really miffed that “Ultimately the “lukewarmers” may be right, climate sensitivity may be on the lower end of the range of possible values, and maybe we will have sufficient time to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions enough to prevent catastrophic climate change. But if the “lukewarmers” are right, it will not be because the temperature record is wrong, or because global warming magically stopped 16 years ago, or because aliens are driving SUVs on Mars, or any of these long-debunked myths. If the “lukewarmers” like Ridley are right, it will be because we were very lucky…” Umm, okay… although I really think you should keep looking for those Land Rovers on Mars. You never know what you might find.
Like so much of the stuff on their website, their criticism is so nebulous and ill-defined that there really isn’t very much to respond to. Please take a look and let me know if you agree.