The true irony here is that someone who knows enough to know how to sign doesn't seem to know the meaning of the word "lurk." 

 The double irony is that the guy who claims this isn't a forum is the one defending an article that reads like one.   

 I really don't think it's necessary to spell out all the arguments for the pro-AGW side in the GW article and then, in the article that lists the reasons why a controversy exists, list them again in retaliation just so that there's not one single paragraph that goes against the dogma without mention of the fact that it's blasphemy.  If this isn't blatantly biased BS then at the very least it's redundant.