Had Popular Science actually read the automated posts of AI_AGW you would know that the bot does not actually present any science but merely repeats that the scientists implicated in the Climategate emails and computer codes scandal are innocent of any wrongdoing.
If the individual was tired of constantly having their spin rebuffed, the civil thing to do is retire from the debate. But to create a bot that just wastes the opposition's time is neither civil, nor scientific, and is in fact the mark of a propagandist pushing an agenda at all costs.
As we head into the second harsh winter in a row, it is clear that the dire warnings of the global warming cult were flawed. The former head of Greenpeace has admitted in video that the claims Greenland would lose its ice in 20 years were a fabrication intended to hoax people into supporting their agenda, and Dr. Phil Jones, the former head of Hadley CRU and the center of the Climategate emails, has admitted in the UK Guardian that there actually has been no warming since 1995.
The use of a Bot betrays a mindset os needing to win at all costs regardless of the actual facts of the matter, and apparently dirty tricks are now an accepted means of scientific debate at Popular Science.