I find that a bit cumbersome. I try to use the word "warmist," which I think is reasonable. Feel free to disagree. ETA: I will try to stop using the word "alarmist."

CAGW endorsers? I think neologisms basically suck. But, alright, fair enough.

That's simply incorrect. Numerous comments either contradict or question what I have written.

I count 22 total comments. Half were made by you and another one was Word Press's sample comment. And a solid percentage of the others agreed with you. 'Numerous' seems like too strong a word unless I am missing part of your blog. It does look like there was one other instance of disagreement than I saw the first time. Apologies for hyperbole in that case.

I haven't deleted anyone's comments at all. As best I can recall, only one person was banned after a warning.

I assumed the person banned in this thread had comments deleted because you responded to all his points and then posted two more times before you banned him. I assumed he had responded to you and done something more heinous to be banned. This doesn't make the banning better, it makes it worse. I don't know what to tell you. The strict rules and the banning look ridiculous for a blog of that size.

Yes, I'm a bit confused. It seems to me that whether you are an attorney, a scientist, or anything else, if you claim that I refused to concede some evidence, you should be prepared to either back up your claim with specifics or admit you cannot do so.

My claim was poorly phrased. What I mean is that I would expect these sorts of questions to have some evidence on either side. It is highly likely the majority position especially, has at least some evidence in its favor. Someone who is honestly trying to figure out the science will look at the majority position and say "oh, these are fair arguments but here are some considerations that would make us doubt them" or "here is why these arguments look convincing but aren't". Even with theists we can say "Yeah I can see how a designer looks like a good explanation for the natural world. But here is this other, better mechanism that explains it all (evolution) and it turns out that positing a designer just pushes the question back a step."

Now admittedly it is possible the endorsers of CAGW really have nothing resembling a convincing argument. And you're certainly not obligated to pretend they do. But my problem isn't just that you haven't conceded that your opponent might make plausible points. I'm afraid it is more general and more vague. Reading your blog is a lot like reading one of the sites giving evidence for either side in the Kercher murder. One does not get the sense that you're interested in truth. One gets the sense that you've made up your mind and are interested mostly in beating up the other side and winning the political battle. Your arguments are dressed like soldiers. I have no idea what your actual motivations are, of course. But this is the sense I get from reading the blog.

Not necessarily. A shockingly high percentage of smart people resort to the sort of tactics which I disdain. For example, I've seen it happen numerous times that people strawman me. It's a complete waste of time to argue with somebody who isn't even arguing against my actual position.

So you don't want all smart people to challenge your beliefs. Presumably, though, you still want smart people to challenge your beliefs.