Why are so-called global warming "skeptics" not skeptical of other "skeptics"?

Why would they be?

I would say about 97% of the time AGW "skepticism" is based off of political affiliation. There is no real argument with the science just with potential policy implementation.

Unfortunately for these people, when the evidence is against them, they'll grasp onto and tenaciously hold any evidence that supports their opinion.

I can think of very few on this forum who actually display signs of true skepticism. The others just deny science.

Yes it has become a religion and Al Gore is the pope of the cult.Think of how much money certain groups will make off of the hype.Think of all that government money going to "research".Besides there is only so much you can do ,after all whoever controls the weather controls the world.Fear is the best political motivator. Climate change is part of the nature of the planet.Common sense is to have clean energy but until there is a buck in it all that happens is talk,talk and more talk.Government regulations,fines and penalties(gotta get that bailout money somewhere) We certainly need clean air and water .I am the original recycler and I don't waste energy just like many other people.I use energy and don't go for the "guilt" trip of doing so. I have a problem with Gore the guru who flies around a fuel guzzling jet.So does Queen Pelosi who opted for a bigger one to fly back and forth to California.Remember her saying she wants to save the planet,yeah she flies we walk.We can all start by using the new energy saving light bulbs. Oh I forgot they are the ones with mercury in them.Oh,well seems like a good idea at the time. I guess you all heard that some genius politician wanted to tax cow farmers for any that own more than 100 for emitting "methane gas" yeah it's true.Can we bottle it instead?Or on second thought send some from the bull to that politician as he knows the B.S. when he sees or smells it.

A few points:

- I'm sceptical of what other sceptics say (such as the 'global cooling' argument for example). Personally, I tend to prod proponents of AGW more.

- In your skepticalscience article, only you stated how there were errors by this 'Lindzen' and his latest writing. Got anything (even pro AGW sources) which back up this so called debunking of it? I didn't see any mention of them in your article.

- Why did you say that Lindzen argued "we are over 80% of the way to greenhouse gas levels that the IPCC claims will cause a 2-4.5°C increase in global temperatures"? According to Lindzen's article, he was apparently quoting the IPCC on that percentage figure. He said "According to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the greenhouse forcing from man made greenhouse gases is already about 86% of what one expects from a doubling of CO2 (with about half coming from methane, nitrous oxide, freons and ozone)".

- Why did you say that Lindzen didn't account for aerosols? It sounded to me like he was when quoting the Ramanathan, 2007 paper and talked about how they had the potential to give a cooling or warming effect. Also, like andy mentioned, even I've seen you in the past say that Clean Air Acts around the world have decreased man made aerosols since 1980 and stopped 'potential' global cooling. http://www.greenoptions.com/wiki/global-warming-my...

Perhaps I am out of my league with this stuff, but if you reply, I'll respond when I get the chance.

(EDIT) RESPONSE TO DANA:

I actually had to have a look in a dictonary to see the definition of 'positive forcing'! Anyway, are you saying that these 'negative forcings' which should have been used are the aerosols? If so, I'll get to that in a minute. Firstly, I'll just say that, yeah I know we haven't eliminated aerosol emissions. I even said 'reduced' in my previous response. Really, what I was trying to imply was how much is their actual effect? In fact, according to a section mentioned in the Ramanthan paper, there seems to be a "fourfold" uncertainty with their effects.

Unfortunately, I seem to be only able to view Lindzen's cited extract of the Ramanathan paper (apparently need a Nature subscription to see entire document). I'm also not sure where black carbon comes into this (because I didn't see it in Lindzen's essay). But, based off the Ramanathan extract, this sounds like Lindzen's argument - because of this "fourfold" uncertainty and the "atmospheric solar heating and surface cooling" effect that aerosols can apparently do (quoted from extract), means that trying to use them makes things unpredictable and/or unreliable. So that's why he seemed to say that they shouldn't be used.

Anyway, I'll be interested in seeing your future article and I'll respond here again when I can.

Um, I thought you have stated in the past that the World had banned aerosols back in the 1970's. If this is the case, then aerosols would not be adding to cooling today. As for the rest, considering that the AGW scientists keep have to modify everything that they do to "proof" man made warming I am not surprised when one of them makes a huge slip like this especially only 15 years ago we were pretty much guaranteed about a 1 to 2°C change in temperature by now. Then NOAA celebrates the temperature hitting #2 warmest again to 1998 as the warmest ever.

Both sides distort the true to back their own agendas. At least the "skeptics" are not also pushing a very sever form of socialism to go along with it.

It's okay to be skeptical. In fact it's healthy. but don't try to ram your skepticism down other people's throats. it doesn't get across the same. when someone says "I am skeptical of this for these reasons" it has a much higher intellectual impact on people. If you say, "global warming is a hoax" I am less inclined to look further into that statement. just some advice for both all sides of this debate :)

Only 2-3% of climate experts are skeptical of man-made global warming.

When these scientists ague amongst themselves, their side of the debate appears even weaker to the general public.

The most fervent deniers are actually employed by the oil and coal industry.

That would require intellectual honesty - and it would conflict with their predetermined beliefs.

===

Harvey Mushman --

Which of the following does not belong with the other two?

"Michael Mann, Al Gore, and Phil Jones".

And, apparently, you are the only one who has seen them with their pants down.

Because the skeptics label is just another deception. They are not skeptics, they are denialists who will go at great lengths to push their point, even through deception, cherry-picking and repeating the same old lies over and over again.

Personally, I am skeptical of skeptics too. This means I don't walk lock step with them. I am much more skeptical: however, that suggestions of warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius in the next 10 years or 100 years is based on anything more than flimsy computer models. It is ridiculous to pretend that there is any confidence in their predictions. Predicting 1.5 C in less than 10 years is pretty ridiculous and that could certainly come back to haunt them much more quickly than more general predictions of doom.