Not enough to get excited about, but a nice approach and conclusion, and a simple, respectful, factual statement:

“Those folks who are advocating for the destructive power of CO2 on climate have a theory. They have a load of dodgy doctored data, and some woefully inadequate computer models. Their data is about as good as the “Ancient Astronauts Theorists” data (in some ways the AAT folks have better data since it is often physical drawings and ancient writings carved in stone and not adjusted, manipulated, or otherwise corrupted). Their computer models leave out the most important physical parts of the actual process (clouds, variable sun, tides variable with lunar cycles, etc.) and so are about as complete as the speculations of the Ancient Astronaut Theorists. And they have their cherished theory (in both cases). So with that in mind, I have made the modest suggestion that in future they be called “Global Warming Theorists”. I think it fits, and is just about right on the emoto-meter.“

I will adopt Mike’s term happily. Always unsure about “warmists” and “alarmists” which were the best that I could ever come up with.
Come to think about, we all (global warming bloggers), are theorists, whichever way we lean, however, our theories are much closer allied to verifiable scientific methods and conclusions, that makes the difference.