Interesting link. Thanks for posting.

CG; I would still like to hear how that consensus is not a form of collectivism. Mind you, it is possible to have a collective of individuals. Whether this applies in this case is questionable. But, it is a leap of logic to even have a consensus of individuals conclude that because they think Driessen is wrong - that he is a liar. That smacks of smearing to stifle debate.

Your second part about accepting reality and considering all and new evidence, even should it be position changing is well put.

"When will you start practicing what you preach?"
Look around you. People responding are literally denying the scientific reality of climate change. I've certainly heard of these people, but it's bizarre to meet one in real life. So it's funny you say I'm talking about unsupported garbage in a thread with people who cannot accept science. That's laughable.

"ep, the lefties finally blamed the oil companies for the effects of plate tectonics and continental drift!"
We shouldn't give a whit what lefties and righties think about scientific claims. You learn things by observation and experimentation. This seems like an un-objectivist message board, where we look at something we can't predict and assert that all reality depends on what we wish it were. This is the path of quantum mysticism and post-modernism.

The "hey libs" thing is telling. It appears you accept the post-modernist view that reality does not exists outside of the perceiver's ideology. You figure if you cannot predict the stock market and you cannot predict the Gaussian noise in a system, we cannot predict anything. We just go with what we wish to be true.

"But we have to accept reality and be open to new evidence"
When will you start practicing what you preach? You are still defending the same unsupported garbage that you have been since you came to this site.

"It would appear in your viewpoint, the collective rules."
Of course not. That does not merit a response. But we have to accept reality and be open to new evidence, regardless of whether we like what the evidence has to say.

I'm not laughing. I take this threat v-e-r-y s-e-r-i-o-u-s-l-y.

So now the rent-seekers are commanding their competitors and other opponents: Shut-up and get out of our way, on pain of arrest and imprisonment!

This is Dr. Floyd Ferris all over again.

It's telling that he refused to discuss the FACTS. All he wanted to do was argue that someone should be jailed for disagreeing with him. What a horse's ass.

but he won't because all he really wants is power.

Spot on, bsmith51. Except, maybe it should be the last 20 milliseconds of stock activity. I recently saw an article on the Internet that originated in a Houston, Tx newspaper that some college "study" had "proof" that recent earth tremors in Texas were caused by drilling for oil. Yep, the lefties finally blamed the oil companies for the effects of plate tectonics and continental drift!

Lying can be illegal (fraud) if the liar does it to profit at your expense.

Fortunately, it's the climate change hoaxters themselves who may get nailed as a result of their own call for investigation.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/02...

Thom Hartmann should apply his data analysis to the stock market. He could look at the last 20 minutes of data and extrapolate that out to the next 20 years and say we're all going to be ruined, or saved, and assign credit or blame.
Yet, that is the methodology being cranked out and sold in our schools.
Hey libs, ever heard of geologic time, sun cycles and the energy budget of the earth?

Save the Planet: Stop Continental Drift NOW !!!!

The reason I was laughing is not only how wrong this Hartmann guy is on the facts, but he resorts to the usual dissonant tactics of trying to outshout and out interrupt what should have been a rational discussion.

But a rational discussion is not what the cognitive dissonants want. It is anathema to that mindset. They always come back with yeah but, yeah but, or a "so what are you saying" query followed by a ridiculously extrapolated irrational conclusion meant to distort the actual premise.

This Hartmann guy could not even acknowledge that Wisconsin and New England have been covered in mile thick continental glaciers at least four times while humans existed. But before man could even begin to allegedly affect the planet. He calls it a "schtick". What is that?

Paul Driessens point was exactly that in the beginning, that glaciers have come and go without human responsibility. But he was outshouted by Hartmann without a consideration for reality or even the basic courtesy of listening. And then accuses Driessen of what Hartmann himself is exactly doing. Amazingly typical.

CG is correct in saying that Hartmann is way off-base in calling for jailing people for free speech.

But, CG is making the same mistake as Hartmann by assuming that Driessen is lying. That implies your conclusions are already foregone on "climate change" and he is already convicted in the court of alleged "consensus".

It would appear in your viewpoint, the collective rules.

Tell me otherwise.

Thom Hartmann is right about the basic facts but absolutely wrong in even speaking hyperbolically about jailing people for lying. Lying isn't illegal. Like the budget deficit and so many problems, we'll deal with the results of global warming when it becomes a crisis. Just as with the budget deficit, we'll push the costs off onto future generations and act suddenly suprised and say hoocoodanode when it's time to face the consequences.