You can't even express or defend your beliefs yourself, you have to post links to the words of your religious leaders. Global warming dogma truly is a religion, and you just proved it."
You have it backwards there, I think.
This is exactly the opposite of debating something like religious doctrine, where everybody has an opinion, every body's opinion is of equal validity on an objective basis, and the more adroit debater "wins".
Expressing "my opinion" (except in so far as I might summarize the arguments) in the case of a technical debate over atmospheric chemistry and physics is pretty pointless in such cases, what anyone who wants to understand the question has to do is go back, read the paper, and read the responses, and attempt to evaluate which is the more reasonable position - there just is no other, easier, way to do it, and no one else can do it for you,
I've done my part - read the original, read the responses, attempted to discover if the author as responded to criticism of the original paper, especially in the last few years (as far as I can determine, he hasn't), and reached the best judgement I can, and pointed you the relevant material I have been able to discover.
If you have done the same, and arrived at a different opinion, IMO the productive thing to do is to take up the question with either the original author or his critics - it's easy to post (for example) and realclimat.org, and the moderators ad posters there are generally quick to respond to substantive comments - you will, though, have to raise substantive issues with regard to the criticism of the paper presented there.
The fact that you are unable to defend your beliefs in your own words and choose to defer to your religious leaders' pontifications rather than doing so is proof that you don't really understand what you are advocating, it is just a matter of faith for you.
FAITH = RELIGION