Is it a coincidence that global warming "skeptics" make a lot of scientifically questionable claims?

Does accuracy and evidence matter to someone whose mind is already made up that in no way will they admit that a warming planet is a fact of life? A sceptic does not care about evidence any more than does a young earth creationist and quite often they are the same people. Before accepting reality they are ready to accept the absurd and there is obviously money selling the absurd. One just needs to see the saddle on the dinosaur at the Creationism Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky to see the absurd in action. Fred Singer who you mentioned is a prime example, he is ready to rent his PhD to sell any message for cash, facts be damned. Ethics are of no concern to people like this, but money sure is. We know about the money from oil companies, but there is also money for writing articles that sell papers and there is money in speaking tours. All you need is a message that the sceptic on the street is willing to pay to listen to.

If they wanted facts, the Farmer's Almanac (old or otherwise)would have been out of business 150 years ago.

If CFCs caused the hole in the ozone layer, then banning them should have caused the ozone hole to repair itself over time. Certainly some progress would have been made by now - as was originally predicted back in the 1980s. But the ozone hole is no smaller now than it was when CFCs were banned. I realize that now they've changed their prediction, claiming that CFCs were 'bigger and badder than originally believed' and that it will take another generation before the ozone hole repairs itself. This is called buying more time, instead of questioning one's own conclusions. CFCs didn't produce the ozone hole. The ozone hole grew over the decade or so since we started taking measurements. We have no idea what happened before then or what will happen hence. But maybe Multiple Account Disorder Dana could help you (see below).

As others have noted this isn't an argument against the global warming denialists, nor is the fact that some of them get their money from fossil fuel interests an argument (to argue against them you have to show that global warming is happening and caused by us, that's not exactly hard to do if you've got the evidence on your side).

But it does help provide an insight of what is going on in their minds and shows that their sloppy thinking isn't just confined to one issue.

When it comes down to it the way a lot of people make decisions is by ideology, they have an ideology already formed and then they decide what fits that ideology and believe that, that is what is probably going on here.

In some cases those who base their decisions on ideological correctness instead of empirical evidence do get things right (though you haven't given any examples of global warming denialists getting things right in this question) but they are more likely to get it wrong.

But it isn't just global warming denialists who do this, there are quite a few people who are accidentally right about global warming.

Any finally divided powder no matter what its nature vegetable or mineral can if breathed eventually cause cancer of the lungs or emphysema. I know more who have come down with lung problems from working with wood finishing than working with asbestos. the thing is when cutting or sanding anything use a good quality dust mask. when cutting or working on anything mineral do it wet and still wear a good mask.

As with most other things the environmentalists and other greens along with the AGW (Al Gore Worshippers) do not understand how the environment works, this is why we are currently in a general environmental crisis. They are the ones who through stupid legislation have compounded a minor problem that was being fixed into a major one that will never be fixed while they interfere with the processes that need to be done to correct things.

Skeptics such as Spencer that make unconnected false claims do lose credibility, but this really has no bearing on their AGW claims. I don't value ad hominem arguments. It is tedious, but each claim should be examined independently.

Roy Spencer mixes facts with half truths and misrepresentations. I find Spencer's simplistic model that equates the Van der Waals size of a molecule with its absorption cross section particularly galling. The absorption cross section is related to the dipole transition moment. Someone with a degree in geology with superficial exposure to quantum mechanics and molecular spectroscopy can make this error honestly, but Roy Spencer knows better and he chose to print a misrepresentation. Normally scientists inform a peer about obvious errors discretely and the error is often retracted or quietly buried (by ceasing to cite the erroneous literature). Spencer has not retracted or buried. Spencer can be figuratively hung for his AGW errors alone, so why bring up unrelated missteps?.

Roy, Roy, and Fred are wrong.

Chris is at least partially correct. Talc is similar to asbestos. Some talc has traces of asbestos in it. (My father, a physician, was fond of saying that if you ever looked at talc under a microscope, you would never use it on your body because it looks like shards of broken glass.) The bad type of asbestos is crocidolite, it is an amphibole mineral and is blue in color. It causes mesothelioma. Another type of talc is chrysotile. It is white and is a serpentine mineral, a completely different class of mineral than crocidolite and is next to harmless. Thus, asbestos isn't just one type of mineral, but a word used to describe any mineral that takes on a fibrous or stringy habit or appearance.

You've just set up a straw man argument that goes something like this: "Look at these people who are obvious bozos. And, they are skeptical about AGW. Therefore, skeptics are wrong."

You may be correct about global warming, and are certainly correct about the first three names you mentioned, but your choice of argument to prove your point needs serious work.

You ask, why do these skeptics make such questionable claims???

Well, have you taken a look at their audience? There aren't any Einsteins in this group. All that someone has to say is, "Today is colder than yesterday!!!! Global warming must be a hoax!" And then the audience cheers, "Let's throw out 150 years of establish science. Oh and while were at it... I have stock in RJ Reynolds Tobacco company, and I'd like to see someone PROVE that second-hand smoke causes lung cancer!!!!"

Yep! Kinda reminds me of the Global Warming Advocates (Warmers).

Wasn't there some yammering back in the 1970's about an Ice Age that was supposed to wreak havoc with the world's population?

Currently, we have tree-lickers claiming that Polar Bears are dying out.... which of course is a lie aimed at brainwashing young school children.

Then there is the Hansen character...... sheesh..... probably one of the most manipulative so-called scientists the world has known..... massaging data to suit his distorted theories.

Dana.... you need to get out of your glass house before you start throwing rocks.

I think Roy Lindzen just points out that a particular data set doesn't show a statistically significant correlation between second hand smoke and cancer. I think he regards research into the health effects of tobacco as a mixture of politics and science with funding linked to how bad researchers can portray smoking. I doubt he ever actually said what you want to believe he said.

I think what you call science is a mixture of science and left wing politics.

I'm sure they're sorry that they don't jump on every bandwagon that comes along without a good reason to do so.

Believers make a scientifically wrong claim by promoting the idea that: atmospheric co2 increases after earthly temperatures rise, and people make co2, therefore human beings cause the earth to warm.