[lzw]

I sure wish you would actually respond to the arguments, maybe make salient points. Instead of simply snidely characterizing everyone who doesn't agree with your ideology.

Also: It reflects on the nature of hacker news that the snotty response has upvotes.

[brazzy]

You have yet to provide any arguments. Snide and snotty counterfactual statements are what you have provided.

[nailer]

He mentioned that 'cap and trade' won't be successful because nobody has the power to implement it.

That's not 'snotty and counterfactual'. Respond to it.

[anthonyb]

You probably want to go back and reread his cap and trade paragraph again, because I think you've misinterpreted 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

[anthonyb]

See my previous replies. You still haven't answered any of my original arguments, btw.

[lzw]

This is another form of insult. You lie about what I have said in order to characterize me in a negative way. Ad hominem. Reality is, I have responded to your "Arguments" such that they are, and you have simply ignored my responses.

If science is really on your side, why so evasive? Why are you arguing to the person rather than to the point?

[anthonyb]

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1867943

[lzw]

You link to a place where you confused me with someone else, as justification for making personal attacks?

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.

[anthonyb]

You keep using that word, "arguments". I don't think it means what you think it means.

[Zuider]

Well, if your antics serve as an ostensive definition of what you consider to be "argument", then you do have a rather unique conception of the term.

[anthonyb]

I asked a pretty straightforward question in response to someone posting a paper. It's not my fault that they can't answer it.