Why LukeWarmers Fight Deniers

The debate on global warming by CO2 emission is commonly divided into the following categories:

1. warmists
2. lukewarmers
3. "deniers".

As "denier" I have met a very hostile and aggressive attitude from many lukewarmers, and I have wondered how that can be. After the last onslaught by Fred Singer reported in the preceding post, I have come to think about this anew and the following explanation presented itself:

A denier is skeptic to CO2 global warming for a reason which is not shared by a lukewarmer. Notably this comes down to "back radiation" which a "denier" claims is unphysical nonsense, while a lukewarmer like Fred views "back radiation" as a real basic physical mechanism behind the "greenhouse effect", which keeps the Earth from freezing to ice.

On the other hand, most other skeptical views held by a lukewarmer are typically shared by a denier. In short, a denier has a richer skeptical arsenal than a lukewarmer, and this evidently makes the lukewarmer upset. It is as if this richer arsenal questions the very credibility of the lukewarmer as skeptic, and that is apparently unbearable. The result is that "deniers" have to be eliminated, not by warmists, but by lukewarmers. Such is life...