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

Roy Spencer is a huge proponent of Intelligent Design (he also claimed the lower atmosphere was cooling until his analysis was proven wrong). Roy Lindzen doesn’t think secondhand smoke causes lung cancer. Neither does Fred Singer, or that CFCs caused the hole in the ozone layer.

An article written by columnist Christopher Booker has recently been cited by “skeptics”. Booker has previously argued that asbestos is “chemically identical to talcum powder” and “poses no measurable risk to health”.

Why is it that these sources of global warming “skepticism” so frequently make such scientifically questionable (or more often, just flat-out wrong) claims?

Answers below in Comments Section