Reading comprehension and nuance are obviously way beyond your skill set.
Just to point out your continued hypocrisy. Your grand statement was a blog post by someone who claims to be a scientist even though he cannot give his name out of fear for his life. That's funny enough but add the fact that you called a peer reviewed scientific journal just a blog post not worthy of your attention. A couple relevant quotes from your ultimate internet find that seem relevant.
"I just don't have the depth of knowledge to critically assess their work and point out their flaws."
"Second,
I hope that anyone with a sincere interest in learning about climate change continues to ask questions."-
"Asking critical questions is an important part of the learning process and the scientific endeavor and should always be encouraged."
Of course there is this gem.
"Help us by voting for, donating to, and volunteering for politicians that can provide the cover to pursue this topic in greater detail."
You have proven that your entire game is deceit and when that doesn't work just start with the name calling which is OK as I have had back and forth interactions with several here that play the same game. It was interesting that even though you showed on several occasions your stunning, dramatic lack of knowledge on this subject how you continued shamelessly with the party line no matter how minor the perceived dissent even though I posted several times that I did not know who was correct in this debate but I did know there was a debate. The perfect example of your brilliance was the best that you could do was call me a "climate denier". Your lack of wit coupled with your extreme lack of knowledge on this subject make you a very boring person.
I do thank you though for the help you have given. I came to the thread knowing nothing about the subject other than that the government is trying to take more of our money through their climate schemes. I felt that given your track record, along with others posting on this forum, that I could comfortably pick the side opposite and force myself to read what would be a normally very uninteresting subject for me.
As a side note it was very humorous that you could so easily discount research funded by business because it would advance their agenda but so easily accept research funded by government even though it advances their agenda. I suppose it is really more sad than funny.
The Krauthammer article was particularly telling. He stated, much like I did, that he did not know one way or the other if the man caused global warming was fact, theory, or myth and also found it telling that most of the global warming supporters spent the majority of their time trying to squash dissent in on form or another. You immediately attacked him calling him names solely because he questions the status quo.
It was also funny how you backed yourself into a corner claiming the IPCC report was scientific fact. When it was pointed out that it showed there was no recent global warming you started claiming it was a lie, then tried to claim that the scientist that put it in the report didn't, then tried to claim that the warming was just hiding from measurement, before calling it "junk science", then finally claiming again the heat was just hiding from measurement. (Yes we agree that you only read the titles to the links you provided, but I read the articles.)
You've been in full goofball mode for some time now and I had held out hope you would recover but you never did.
Oh and if you did not figure it out I do not eagerly await your reply but I am sure you will just go on with your normal head in the sand rabble rabble.