Quote my initial statement please. You say I am goal post moving... but if you look at what I was saying you'll see that you cannot put me in that box. Sorry, sport.
My position was from the beginning an answer to someone as to why people would be so emotionally, ideologically, and even morally invested in a matter despite being unhorsed on so many of the core precepts.
My answer was thus a response to why a PERSON would hold a position such as that despite being proven wrong repeatedly.
We are discussing politics, psychology, morality, sociology...
if you want to have a discussion about AGW... we can do that too... but my argument was on the state of mind of people rather than on AGW or GW itself. This is quite obvious by looking at my original post.
So do you want to discuss my original point or do YOU want to goal post move or change the subject and argue something else? Because I can do that if you want... but do not presume that unwillingness to change the subject was somehow intellectual dishonesty when in fact it would YOU that is dishonest by implying my context was other than what it obviously was...
Friendo, this line of rhetoric out of you does nothing to unseat my position or grant you any kind of intellectual high ground.