The supposition that I haven’t been paying attention is not only reasonable, it’s accurate.

From random page hits, it seems Greg has been going back and forth with these guys for some time. My assessment is that people lie to others by conviction to a position they believe correct, and naturally set a low threshold for confirming evidence. This is entirely natural, and how our brains are wired. Hence the importance of structures and “rituals” to weed out errors in such an unreliable method. I would be very interested to see a reference to where Ham or Watt actually admit duplicity or that there’s no possibility of a “delusion defense”.

Our brains evolved for survival & synaptic efficiency, not accuracy in modeling reality. Math, (perhaps our purest science) rests on some pretty dubious foundations, yet mathematicians routinely, explicitly affirm the contrary with religious zeal and regrettably often, become aggressive when counter examples are presented.

I’m not convinced of that these people are telling lies,

If you’re not convinced you haven’t been paying attention. It isn’t exactly clear what you believe, actually, or what you’re saying.

I’m not convinced of that these people are telling lies, any more than I think Greg is lying in his responses. I think he (and they) honestly can’t see facts too painful to confront. When someone resorts to snark or insult, they’re excusing themselves from the realm of reason. This is common with religious apologists who are confronted with basic problems inherent in their positions, and it is properly condemned. It doesn’t mean they’re lying, it just means they’ve turned from the road of evidence which seems to be heading in a “wrong” direction.

Greg seems loathe to admit his argument has serious weaknesses, even though his positions and criticisms are quite valid. Such is a weakness we all share. The ability to overcome this insecurity is what distinguishes good science and, some would say: explains its properly unique epistemic status and progress as the most productive system of thought ever invented.

What a stupid statement in this setting: Ham, Watt, and their ilk, do not have a “systematic inability to recognize error” — they are habitual (congenital would be more appropriate) liars. They are not missing the point of the research, they are deliberately telling lies.

And this is why we are glad you recognized your error!

@Dean,

I assert that HOW we analyze and criticize is more important than the opinions we hold.

It is the systemic inability to recognize error that seems to most often lead us astray. Failure to recognize this can make us as bigoted as any jihadist, or Watt/Ham.

If that’s trolling, we simply disagree.

It’s a truly clueless display on your part. Tone trolling is too kind a name for it.

@Jung,

What Greg stated in terms of its content is not at issue, it is his lack of rational justification. It’s as though we’re discussing pi, and you are arguing for the correctness of the digits Greg provided, with which I agree. I agree with Greg’s position, but object to sloppy, unscientific justification that goes no deeper than name-calling as “absurd” & and drawing an analogy very unlikely to be taken as persuasive by the undecided (& should not be) if rational justification is our guide.

It certainly seems unlikely to productively reach any of the victims of GCC denialism / religion.