The following is why engaging in a dialog with a denier merely eats up time - though it is a good demonstration of what is taking place: the 'politics' involved.
My post of the Bill Nye video was in direct rebuttal to your claim that he thinks there are 'serious flaws in global warming logic and/or science'. The video - which I chose at random btw - refutes your claim about his views. I have heard Bill Nye express his views on Climate Science and Global Warming and I have never heard him state what you say. Point made unless you can come up with a direct quote from Bill Nye to the opposite view.
EDIT NOTE: I just realized that you were connecting your comments to Freeman Dyson, not Bill Nye. The way your post was written it was confusing (to me). Hence my posting the Bill Nye video - which still stands as a worthy video imo.
You are also massively misunderstanding Freeman Dyson. Dyson was scientist having arguments of degree with fellow scientists but he was not positing that AGW does not exist. He simply has a different view of prognostications being made, to which he is entitled. Take a gander at wikipedia (no less) for some insight into how Dyson's thinking went.
"Friends and colleagues describe Dyson as shy and self-effacing, with a contrarian streak that his friends find refreshing but his intellectual opponents find exasperating. "I have the sense that when consensus is forming like ice hardening on a lake, Dyson will do his best to chip at the ice", Steven Weinberg said of him. His friend, the neurologist and author Oliver Sacks, said: "A favorite word of Freeman's about doing science and being creative is the word 'subversive'. He feels it's rather important not only to be not orthodox, but to be subversive, and he's done that all his life."
We have more regarding his views on Climate Change.
"Dyson agrees that anthropogenic global warming exists, and has written that "[one] of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas."
"[Dyson] notes that "[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have."
"In 2008, he endorsed the now common usage of "global warming" as synonymous with global anthropogenic climate change, referring to "measurements that transformed global warming from a vague theoretical speculation into a precise observational science."
"He has argued that political efforts to reduce the causes of climate change distract from other global problems that should take priority."
'Dyson wrote: "I'm not saying the warming doesn't cause problems, obviously it does. Obviously we should be trying to understand it. I'm saying that the problems are being grossly exaggerated."
Nye was speaking to the issues that make debating deniers a problem. Did you listen to the video? I suspect not - because Nye actually does get into the science - your 'the points raised'. If you cannot be honest in your conversation, you cannot expect anyone to take you seriously.
Bill Nye is a science educator who is well known - the way Isaac Asimov was. I suspect Bill Nye has more of a grasp of physics than most of the lay public. He knows physics. He and Dyson are different breeds of scientists, but Nye is no slouch: LINK:
Bill Nye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia But this is exactly what Nye's point was in that video I linked to - denier's deflect with 'credentials'. Fact is, even Dyson acknowledged that he did not have command of the technical facts of global warming but he did not pretend that AGW was not occurring. Dyson was objecting to other - human behavior - factors that he did not like.
I do address it 'for real'. How many scientific papers on global warming
have you read in the last month? or in the last 12 months?
'Wall of text poster"? I am posting articles - does the amount of text intimidate you? there are some people who cannot link to an article - and sometimes links go defunct. In both cases the text is preserved because I have copied-and-pasted the text here. A reader is not obliged to click on a link unless they want to.
And as for being 'full of crap' - that doesn't compute. You have said you admire 'real scientists' - so I would assume you would admire Climate Scientists. Even Freeman Dyson respected the Climate Science. He may have disagreed with various ins-and-outs of it - being the contrarian he was - but he never dissed it. Your 'full of crap' dismissal is just more of the denier stuff when confronted with the undeniable facts.
Curious statement.

Not sure what to make of it. I am providing articles for amusement and edification. Make of them what you will. Many here are enjoying the read. Those who aren't don;t come on the thread. Simple.