Dana recently posed this question on Y!A:
"Is it a coincidence that global warming "skeptics" make a lot of scientifically questionable claims?"
and provided some further discussion about skeptics like Spencer and Lindzen:
"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."
In one of the responses, d/dx (who also posts here as Whiteshell) responds to Dana with this:
"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."
Rather than respond on Y!A, which isn't really a forum for discussion, and all of Dana's questions get deleted anyway, I am going to respond here.
The scientific positions of climate skeptics unrelated to climate are important and relevant and *not* ad hominem attacks because they demonstrate that skeptics are, by and large, not objective scientists. I submit it is impossible to be an objective scientist and believe in intelligent design (or deny the link between environmental tobacco smoke and health effects although the case becomes a little less defined (to be honest, Lindzen is far too cagey to come out and say such a thing (Crichton is on record saying there is no link, and Lindzen and Crichton often speak at the same venues so it is easy to conflate their opinions)). But back to ID, the hard evidence for evolution by random genetic mutation followed by selective pressure is too great for any rational thinking scientist to deny, and belief in ID is religion, not science. So a scientist going on record in support of ID shows a fundamental lack of rational objectivity about the physical world, and a predisposition to put emotional bias into data analysis. Once a scientists has done that, one must regard all of their work with suspicion, since they have lost the right to claim they are dispassionate objective observers of the physical world. Therefore, I agree with Dana that climate skeptics other scientific statements are highly relevant, especially those that demonstrate a loss of objectivity, or faith in unseen motive forces in the universe. In short, many skeptics are not scientists.