Houston, we have a meltdown.
You’re a moaron.
Keep going.
What a tool, and I do wonder if FX is a sock of the banned Poptech as referencing him was either the biggest “I’m with stupid and I join him” moment seen in the SDMB or it is him.
Continue.
No, your turn now. Start with responding to the OP.
BTW, the same typing style of FX here with just one liners and no reply to the OP was seen also on the discredited and banned Poptech **after **he found out that moderators and almost all posters concluded that he was a Jerk; so Poptech decided to double down on the Jerkiness and his Trolling and sure enough, he was banned soon after.
Never stop being you.
Same to you, as it will lead to your banning. Hey, I’m easy. 
And of course, the ongoing refusal to deal with the OP and others here is just evidence of how no one should rely on your dumb pontifications.
You are the best.
Even here you are hopelessly wrong, more than once I pointed at my grammar as a crime against nature and recently I had to admit that I was not aware about how Stephen Schneider was a great teacher and a great source to find evidence about how deniers are misrepresenting how scientists use models and how risk should be managed regarding this issue.
The point here is that I’m getting better with the information that is out there, another point here is that if this was pseudoscience then the longer this gets discussed we should have already ran into a growing or big existing group of scientists that report that this is not an issue at all. But the reverse is happening, more evidence is found that supports the idea that this is science and not pseudoscience as you claim. And this is why the pontifications you give us are dumb, history shows that more than 100 years of research has convinced them, and they are smarter than I am on this issue, and so it goes for all other reasonable people that are also aware of their limitations, they check what the experts are saying, not the opinion of an anonymous cherry picker denier on the internet.
Now you know exactly how I feel about you, and your unskepticalscience,com sources.
It’s exactly why I asked you to define what you mean by “global warming”, and why I told you there was no definition of any theory, much less actual science on the blog you quote ALL THE FUCKING TIME. You ran away when faced with this simple truth.
We actually agree, in that we should avoid and despise “the opinion of an anonymous cherry picker denier on the internet”. It’s just that you are the anonymous cherry picker denier, which is why it’s so ironic.
A lie as I linked before in GD to the dictionary definition.
Of course it is not my problem that you are insisting on piling up evidence of how wrong you are.
A lie also, as anyone can see when consulting a scientist like Dr. Richard Milne.
The reality is that even a favorite source of yours, woodforthetrees.org advises you to not do your trademarked **misleading **cherry picks by using only the latest years to deny the overall warming trend.
Keep doing what you do
And you will continue lying and evading the OP, the evidence of that is clear for all to see.
Don’t stop. Ever.
Somebody’s been to Colorado recently.
There was a bungee jumping accident in Colorado?
Oh look, FX showed up. Maybe we’ll finally figure out what he thinks Climategate meant and why.
…
Well, I’d say I’m disappointed, but that would imply that I expected anything other than FX continuing to be a complete and utter failure as a human being.
Doomsday people are funny.