I did that earlier. I did that just now, then dug into the thread itself. Honestly, I can read it both ways, though by way of full disclosure I tend to read such things with a generous interpretation, and react strongly when accusations of lying are explicit. That’s my bias.
Can I pivot to a more general point? Wolfpup captured the fundamentals of the issue in a past ATMB thread:
There are some psychological issues that arise when someone trusts science and medicine with their life, but decides that 98% of all climate scientists are wrong. Such phenomenon are valid grist for GD.
What would have been best practice to communicate such valid ideas? “Willful ignorance” could have included a link to wikipedia, but frankly on a message board devoted to fighting ignorance would arguably be read as more offensive. “Willful blindness” is another alternative. But frankly I think “Willful denial” sounds mildest to me. On a first reading, I gave it a generous interpretation (but recall my bias).
At any rate, here’s my point. We want to keep pit-worthy stuff out of GD. But we don’t want to discourage clear communication. I think direct accusations of lying serve no purpose and are inappropriate as they are essentially about the poster. But “Your post expresses symptoms of denial”, seems appropriate in some discussions of climate science. Of course everything can be trolled and line danced. Which is why the mods need to look at general patterns of behavior.
By way of further disclosure, this post expresses my preferences for board policy on this topic: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18745407&postcount=161