Why do the various "skeptics" all disagree with each other, too?

For 2 basic reasons.

1) None of their arguments or theories are very good. The "natural causes" argument is vague (which natural causes?), the solar warming theory has been completely disproven, and the galactic cosmic ray theory has serious fundamental problems.

The surface temperature record has been proven to be good (by several different tests including a comparison to satellite lower troposphere measurements), models have been proven to be accurate, and conspiracy theories are absurd.

If any of their theories or arguments had any validity, the 'skeptics' would all rally behind it, but they can't agree on which one is the least bad. On YA the most frequent argument we see is probably 'solar global warming', and it completely disregards all data over the period that the planet has been warming the most. Virtually no scientists (with the exception of perhaps one Russian crackpot) support this theory.

2) The deniers don't need to agree with eachother. Their sole purpose is to convince people that there is confusion on the issue. That's why they're always trying to disprove the scientific consensus and throwing out every possible argument that might undermine the AGW theory, even if their arguments contradict other 'skeptics' arguments.

They don't need to prove an alternative theory or disprove the AGW theory. All they need to do is confuse enough people who don't know any better, and they may be able to succeed in delaying action to address the problem, which in the end is their goal.

Easy, because there is not one single alternative theory that stands up to any real scrutiny!

Skeptics can see the flaws in other skeptic's arguments. There is not one clear contender; a valid alternative explanation to explain the affects of Global Warming, sorry I correct myself, there is not one clear argument against AGW!

Just ask a Skeptic to site a source. They often quote references that actually SUPPORT AGW, but do not understand enough about the subject to know the evidence they are providing actually disproves what they are claiming!

What I liked about the skeptic answers is that in the case of the one discussing Venus, aside from the fact the link doesn't say the observed temperature of Venus is too large for the forcing, the RealClimate link provided cuts the legs out of the skeptic-du-jour paper from the Hungarian. One of the cases people made that the Hungarian was right was that Earth had never had a runaway greenhouse effect and his new theory explained why, so it must be right (notwithstanding that Venus does have a runaway greenhouse and his theory couldn't account for that). However, the RealClimate link explains why, in the current theory where CO2 forcing has a large effect on climate, you still wouldn't have a runaway greenhouse on Earth. (Returning to the skeptic argument, the article does say that in the absence of the CO2 forcing, because of the cloud cover the surface temperature of Venus would be -40 C or so, but that is not the same thing as saying the observed surface temperature is larger than predicted by the forcing. (It is technical details like this, so often missed by the skeptics, which lead me to question their true understanding of the science.)

The guy citing Lindzen misses the fact that the 2003 GRL paper is using the uncorrected MSU2 troposphere data, where the contamination from stratospheric cooling has not been removed. So Lindzen's model results are based on spurious data and mean essentially nothing. Furthermore, Lindzen changed tactics because the Iris Hypothesis has been shown to be unimportant (if it were, deep convection in the tropics would be increasing by nearly 50% in order to remove the heat from the CO2 forcing and it isn't (look at the ISCCP cloud-cover data, they are still arguing if it is going up or down, not whether the increase is 60% or 40%)).

The various skeptics disagree with each other because most of them do not understand the physics. Because they don't, they think any argument is as good as another, and don't understand that accepting one argument as the reason makes a different skeptic's argument invalid. Lindzen is smart enough to understand the physics, so his theories are harder to disprove, and he shifts them as required, but even so he is left playing games with bad data. As I've said before, the "skeptics" are really obstructionists, not really focused on understanding the science. They're more interested in seeing how fast a sand castle can be kicked apart than they are about designing new ways to build one to withstand the tide.

Well for starters you are misrepresenting Lindsen. He questions the climate sensitivity of co2. He believes that increased of co2 will cause temperature increases, but they are so low that they are nothing that we should be alarmed about:

"The suddenness of the tropospheric temperature change seems distinctly unlike what one expects from greenhouse

warming, while the relative rapidity with which the surface

temperature caught up with the troposphere, less than about

10 years, suggests low climate sensitivity for a wide range

of choices for thermocline diffusion."

http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/203_2001GL0140...

As for accepting the temperature trend: "There has been no warming since 1997 and no statistically significant warming since 1995. Why bother with the arguments about an El Nino anomaly in 1998?

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/11/a-...

Skeptic fall into different camps just like warmers fall into different camps. Not all warmers believe in tipping points, or hurricane activity or the degree of temperature rises or that warming is necessarily bad. Does the fact that you cannot get a unanimous decision among warmers discredit them also?

Bob, I'm actually a fan.But yet so much of this has yet to be proven.There's doubts as to whether GW can actually be proven much less then AGW. I'm more incline to believe in AGW then GW. If one were to correlate all the misnomer's in AGW,it would be a paramount factor.It's all the other discrepancy's that befuddles the argument. The list is long ranging from MWP,LIA,current PDO's,Tropical models,studies concerning photosynthesis,CO2 Doubling,Synchronization of the two hemisphere's...etc.

For each aspect of the anthropogenic global warming theory, there is a corresponding skeptical argument. Each skeptic focuses on their “pet” argument more than on other arguments, in the same way that AGW believers focus on their “pet” hypothesis as to the cause(s) or future effects of warming. Neither side has a “silver bullet” to trump the other’s theories; but both sides think they do; and this is why the difference in arguments. This does not mean the skeptics are in disagreement any more than it means the believers are in disagreement.

The bottom line is that neither side has all of the evidence in their corner, and the causes of climate change are still more a matter of conjecture than facts. So in the absence of conclusive evidence, and presence of valid counter-arguments – even if they are not the same argument – objectivity should rule the day. That doesn’t mean it will not be proven one way or the other, it’s just that until it’s truly settled science, prudence dictates skepticism.

Why are solar, wind and alternative energy stocks dropping faster than any other stock?

Remember Martha? Scientists are telling each other the truth while you are being left out in the cold. LOL

Please mark my words so that I can tell you in a few months that I, ME, LARRY TOLD YOU SO..... PLEASE?????

How about do a web search of Gore's visit to Denmark.... His reception was.... NOT SO GOOD ROTFLMAO

I am still laughing uproariously over the Global Warming in the Jar experiment! That is so, so, so funny!!!!!

YO DAWG.... AIN'T VENUS CLOSER TO THE SUN?????? Just axin.... Guess if we rule out the SUN, we can make any claim whatsoever.... LOL

Skeptics know that what they believe is their personal opinion based on their observations and studies. They know that they don't know if it will be warmer or colder 5 year from now. And they aren't afraid to state their opinions either.

It's the believers who can't separate opinion from objective facts. The also have no idea if the future will bring warmer or colder temperatures, but they just can't find the strength to admit it, as they seek safety in the crowd.

For the believers, it's like the fable of the emperors clothes. They "see" because they don't want to look foolish.

Dr. Stephen Hawkings stated that the Earth's temperatures would reach 450DegF and rain sulfuric acid. Do all believers agree?

They use the same playbook as the young-earth-creationists used throughout the 80's. Scour the literature (very cursory is all that's needed, understanding isn't required) and find anything that looks remotely unclear or confusing. Then act like that point (no matter how minor) is the entire foundation of AGW theory and attack it. The choir will believe you, since you are one of them, and if you're lucky you'll confuse a few other people and get them to join.

Lindzen's iris theory is proof that there isn't any conspiracy against alternative theories. It was published in a reputable scientific journal and other scientists tried to replicate his work (that's the way science works). The fact that errors were found in his work and other experts were not convinced when they scrutinized it, only shows that his theory wasn't valid. So his theory, like many other ideas put forth over the previous 100 years of climate science debate, went to the grave where it belongs. Too bad there are so many "skeptics" keep trying to resurrect things long ago disposed of.

Calculations for atmospheric forcing are at best incomplete. Using similar accounting, Venus is actually warmer than it should be based on it's co2 content. Lindzen's "magical" feedback may be at work there too.

The point being, what is represented to me as "settled science" is nothing of the sort. Unknowns remained to be described. Let's not let the illusion on knowledge get in the way.