What word would you suggest I use to describe those who subscribe to the CAGW Hypothesis?

How about "those who subscribe to CAGW"? Certainly referring to them as alarmists begs the question. In general, the suffix "-ist" suggests an ideologue who can't be reasoned with (there are exceptions, such as philosophical positions, but in political discussions this is almost always the case). Whether or not those who hold the view you disagree with can in fact be reasoned with is irrelevant-- this coinage amounts to ad hominem by connotation.

And are you claiming that the "scientific establishment" subscribes to the CAGW Hypothesis?

I think the scientific establishment drops the 'C' (or at least doesn't hold the extremely terrifying beliefs a lot of non-scientists hold about global warming) but since you've coined new terms at few points in your blog do I know who you're actually critisizing.

I think this depends on how fair the rules are. Pretty much every discussion board, including this one, has rules and bans people who break those rules. Do you think my rules are unfair?

You don't have a discussion board, you have a personal blog. The rules here are mostly informal and they're designed to ensure quality of content and civility. We have a few rules about subject area but they are flexible and are only needed at all because they're often noisy for the large number of people that come here. Your rules limit discussion to one, very particular thesis. Which is fine if you've got a ton of readers and you're trying to sort signal from noise. We ban people who constanly post New Agey nonsense because no one wants to be distracted by that stuff. You don't have the readership to do that. You've had one dissenting commenter afaict. He was banned.

Your other rules: If someone here uses a straw man someone else replies "Hi. This is a straw man." On your blog, you promise to ban them. If someone equivocates here another person will reply "I think you're equivocating on this point." some discussion will then ensue about whether or not that person is in fact equivocating. On your blog however, if someone equivocates or is otherwise "weaslely" they must admit they are weasling or they will be banned. Here if person A criticizes person B's spelling person B will usually edit their comment and reply "Thanks." On your blog, if you are person B you will assume that person A has conceded your argument.

This only begins to describe your list of 9(?) rules. I can't see how they're actually implemented because it looks like you deleted the violating comments. They aren't so much unfair as preposterous. In the words of the one person who commented to the post listing your rules: "Dude, seriously, chill."

What evidence did I refuse to concede?

Put it this way: you argue like an attorney not a scientist. Is anyone not clear what I mean by that?

Suit yourself.

Look, presumably you want smart people who disagree with you to challenge your beliefs. I'm giving you strong reasons why they might be avoiding you. Do with that information what you wish.

the gold standard for substantiating the water vapor feedback hypothesis would be if the proponents of that hypothesis made specific interesting and accurate predictions about future events.

No, that is evidence of authority. The gold standard would be if the assumptions that led to the hypothesis also led to specific interesting and accurate predictions about future events (and don't lead to inaccurate predictions).

A system can have a balance between positive and negative feeback. If it has a mix of both, there's amplification, not necessarily a runaway. (The balance between solar input and radiation to space, among other things provides negative feedback)

Moreover, it isn't even just a multiplication problem. There are different styles of feedback - proportional, integral, differential - and those latter two can come with different time scales

It's obvious that pushing the same direction for a hundred years can be much bigger a deal than pushing a hundred times as hard in the same direction for a day, but it's also true of a hundred-times-as-strong push lasting for, say, two years. Or, depending on the different feedbacks, the hundred times as hard for a day could have a bigger effect.

And all of that is without going nonlinear!

But when will it push back at you? Before or after it has triggered a mass extinction event?

There is evidence that there have been multiple mass extinction events in the planet's history, some of which may have been caused by the earth getting too hot or too cold.

What kinds of possible evidence would you expect to see if such positive feedbacks can happen?

I'm not sure what you mean by "can happen," since in some sense lots of things "can happen."

Sorry for the ambiguity. I should have reflected your wording more closely and written "What kinds of possible evidence would you expect to see if the climate operates by positive feedback in this way?" Part of the purpose of the question was to determine what you meant when you chose that wording.

Anyway, it's not a full answer to your question, but the gold standard for substantiating the water vapor feedback hypothesis would be if the proponents of that hypothesis made specific interesting and accurate predictions about future events.

Since the effects are alleged to take place over decades, asking to see this evidence now is asking for impossible evidence.

I disagree, and perhaps an anlogy would help: All things being equal, cooler weather can be expected to lead to more snow cover. And all things being equal, more snow cover can be expected to result in cooler surface temperatures because of effects on the Earth's albedo. So should we worry that the next big volcano will trigger an ice age?

A priori, yes we should. However, we would be justified in decreasing our concern if either (1) additional theoretical consideration show that, in fact, according to our best theory, that loop probably wouldn't occur, or (2) despite our best theory, we've observed many big volcanoes erupt without setting off such loops.

Let us suppose that (2) is the case. Then this would decrease our confidence in our best climatological theory. However, if that same theory asserts that X will probably cause Y, where X is not very similar to something that we've observed in the past (so, not a big volcano eruption), then our best bet is still that Y will follow X, even though our theory blew it on the consequences of the volcano eruption. Our confidence in Y will go down, but it will exceed our confidence in ~Y. (Otherwise, the theory wouldn't be our "best".)

(To the best of my knowledge, our theories don't mispredict the consequences of volcanoes, though, for all I know, that could be only because volcanoes were part of the input data used in the theories' construction.)

The normal assumption should be that if you push on such a system, then it will probably push back at you.

This sounds like you want to construct a climate theory by taking an a priori first-principles theory and adding an ad hoc "push back" mechanism, according to which the current equilibrium is assumed to be more stable than the first principles would justify. It's fine to believe in such a mechanism, even if you can't justify it from first principles, provided that you have direct empirical evidence for it. In which case, great, add that evidence to the pile of all the other evidence that we use to justify beliefs about the climate, and let's see how it all adds up.

I was asking for citations suggesting that water vapor feedback doesn't happen. I'll grant that the argument is off-topic, though.