Why can't climate deniers agree on anything?

"So if climate changers all agree on one thing ..." I would like to know the one thing that climate changers all agree on? Would it be one of the things in Zippi's list that some sceptics might also believe?

I have yet to gain a clear idea of what the believers believe. They think the climate changes - so do I. Some believe that it only started changing since the Industrial Revolution - that is wrong. Some think that CO2 causes warming - so do I. Some think that Big Government is the only way to fix it - that is politics and there will be alternative methods.

The problem is that the theory of global warming as presented in places like this is so shot full of holes that it is easy to find fault with it. The fact that different people can find different faults is hardly surprising.

I am not a climate denier. I am not a climate change denier. That would be you and your fellow alarmists who insist that climates never changed until evil humans came along. The real climate change deniers, e.g Alarmists, keep redrawing the lines in the sand as their predictions fail over and over again. I don't look to agree with my fellow skeptics. Either they agree with me or not. Usually, at least, they agree on their skepticism.

We agree that we've (humans in general) helped changed the entire atmosphere by a mere 0.012% (CO2 rise from 0.028% to the current 0.04%)

We agree that millions of people being busy (industry) within a close proximity will cause a horrifying fog/smog that affects people's overall health. A sight that one rarely (if ever) sees in rural areas.

We agree that CO2's warming effect in the atmosphere depreciates as its concentration increases. An undeniable scientific fact that gets thrown under the bus by people like Al Gore, Michael Mann, Barack "insane" Obama, etc... .

We agree that atmospheric CO2 has increased by 40% in over 350 years of human industrialization (280ppm to 400ppm) and that temperatures have risen 0.87C (0.87k) during that same time period. That increase in temp is equal to a 2.6% increase of the greenhouse effect (33.87k/33k) and an overall temperature hike of 0.3% on the entire planet's average surface temperature (288.87k/288k).

to be continued ....

We agree that the most recent Ice Age ended between 150 and 200 years ago (LIA - Little Ice Age) and that temperatures will "NATURALLY" rise after an Ice Age.

We also agree that there is a thing called "Natural Climate Variability" and that it dominates the earth's changes in climate. Human impact (0.012%) has very little to do with "natural variability".

Deniers are consistent on one thing: They deny their own denial.

Otherwise they are all over map. Most of them here are partial to Wattsup's anti-science croc of the week (which over the weeks is all over the map too), but they have trouble sometimes agreeing which croc that is, most of them have difficulties understanding what that croc is (even if they all pick the same one) so they misconstrue it different ways, and some have to go back further than a week to find something dumed down far enough.

Nuclear power is cool and all, just need a place to put the waste. Right now it's sitting all all the existing power plants.

One thing we can all agree on is that no one knows if it will be warmer or colder in 5 years without guessing or giving an opinion. Neither are science, just a belief.If the desire is to reduce co2, fine, we can all agree to that. Since 50% of the co2 in the USA comes from power generation, just build more nuclear power plants. Problem solved.

Because "deniers" are talking crap. Climate science is based on evidence and fact. ONce the evidence is in -- which it is -- all (honest) people agree.

As a general rule, if you have one group that's telling the truth, and another that isn't, the group that's telling the truth will be much more consistent than the one that isn't, unless the liars *rehearsed* their story.

Because the burden of proof is on those who propose a theory. Every part of it must be correct. Skeptics can disagree with any part, and need not be in agreement with each other, because their agreement is only that the global warmers are wrong, because it is the warmers who are proposing a theory.

They agree that it is part of some political conspiracy. Everything else – especially science – is irrelevant.