Premise: NOT P
Premise: Anyone who says that P is true is part of conspiracy to put down the truth of premise NOT P.

Its a form of self-inoculating argument. It makes the explicit assumption that anyone attacking his claim is part of a vast conspiracy to attack the claimant and not the premise. Its a 'reverse' appeal to ridicule argument.

So, tell me: Were you able to discount the science behind the Affirmative case for Anthropogenic Global Warming on the recent threads? Do you think you scored any points when trying to fight this battle on the literature in the recent threads?

So really, your entire argument against the consensus view on Anthropogenic Global Warming is about political ideology (yours and that which you attribute to the consensus holders), claims concerning a conspiracy to suppress 'good science' that contradicts the consensus view (good science that you can neither find nor advance- which you view as evidence of the conspiracy), and essentially politically driven rhetoric, like that quoted in the above post.

Let me break it down into very simple baby steps for you:

You, nor any others have to this point succeeded in knocking down the scientific and empirical footing for the AGW consensus. Therefore, you formulate the proposition that such arguments exist that will knock down AGW. You add the premise, then, that it is not evident because it is suppressed by a vast political agenda.

Thus, you shift the argument away from science, evidence, induction etc and into rhetoric and politics.

IE, you end up arguing over the conspiracy to suppress the contradicting science, and not about the science.

I call Bullshit.