Also: It reflects on the nature of hacker news that the snotty response has upvotes.
That's not 'snotty and counterfactual'. Respond to it.
Thus "Cap and trade" and all these other proposals [...] give governments dictatorial control over industry and people's lives....and they bring us closer to a global government.
ie. cap and trade == evil world government
If science is really on your side, why so evasive? Why are you arguing to the person rather than to the point?
See also: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1867917
So, you refuse to respond to arguments, you admit it, and you demand that people make arguments to someone else, and then you lie about me to accuse me of being evasive, and then you link to an argument you made where you confused me with someone else (after ignoring my previous arguments) to support the claim that I'm ignoring your arguments?
In short, you have attacked me, lied about me, ignored my argumments, not provided any arguments of your own, and instead linked to someone else's blog and demanded that your opponents debate them.
I think I'm done. You can continue to be evasive or make personal attacks. I can't stop you. But there is no point in wasting any more time on you.
You have, by the way, proven my point, by once again being a supporter of AGW who: 1. Is not familiar with the science. 2. Is unwilling or unable to make arguments. 3. Is unequipped to respond to scientific arguments. 4. Who rests their advocacy on the claims of others that tehy assert are "Scientists" 5. Engages in personal attack. 6. Engages in dishonest statements. 7. Rejects the scientific method.
You have demonstrated all of these, and this forces me to remain convinced in my belief that advocates of AGW are anti-science religious zealots.