Because they are in meltdown. They have been taking a beating lately and the real truth is coming out. Their questions are often incoherent, intentionally degrading to people of science, full of lies and misquotes, calling people liars without any proof, and usually having no environmental relevance.

Obviously they are being supported by Y!A for some unknown reason. I have been told directly by Y!A that my influence on this site is less than 'Analog's'. Yet Analog whines and cries that he is not getting fair treatment. Those people you speak of are mental midgets posing as Hercules. I wish I could buy them for what they are worth and sell them for what they think they are worth. I'd be richer than Al Gore, their High Priest.

But feel sorry for these IPCC supporters, they are also frustrated ObamaCare website programmers. They can't do anything right.

Find a question Analog hasn't ask that's not subversive. The only credit I give Analog is determination. But who wants to drive reverse all the time?

Is that Analog vs HD by any chance?

Actually, some of the questions he asked were quite good. In fact, if the questions were not relevant, as you claim, why did people like Sagebrush re-post them?

By the way, if his questions are not relevant, just where does it put this question of yours?

So there is a certain poster on this board, whose name I will not mention, let's just call him Analog.

So Analog likes to rail about how this forum is letting the wrong people speak, and that proper climate scientists' views are not being considered. Analog tends to block people he disagrees with from answering his questions. Recently others on the board have resorted to reposting Analog's questions so that everyone can answer them. All too frequently, YahooAnswers suggests a category other than global warming, such as social science, history, or hobbies and toys.

Should we label IPCC defenders as anti-science?