Quote from: dwma on September 27, 2016, 10:55:16 PM

Quote from: Spendulus on September 26, 2016, 03:14:24 PM

Quote from: dwma on September 26, 2016, 05:59:44 AM

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-016-1198-6

Very interesting read.

Reads behind paywalls can be outright rejected, since they cannot be read.

I hereby reject your linky.

Not saying it is the crazy talk that the abstract appears to indicate, just saying that we cannot fully appreciate it's alarmist hyperbolic trajectory toward damnation of those other than the paid off tit suckers of Gore, without being able to READ your "Very Interesting Read."

lol...

Not sure why it is a paywall for you? Perhaps the site where it was referred to me opened it up, but I can read the article in entirety without paying or logging into anything.

It really is fascinating. It basically digs into the underlying biases of many of the people in this thread. At a meta level, it explains what is really going on in this thread. It proposes answers to my why?s which fits with my world view.

Here is the abstract.

Quote

Science strives for coherence. For example, the findings from climate science form a highly coherent body of knowledge that is supported by many independent lines of evidence: greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from human economic activities are causing the global climate to warm and unless GHG emissions are drastically reduced in the near future, the risks from climate change will continue to grow and major adverse consequences will become unavoidable. People who oppose this scientific body of knowledge because the implications of cutting GHG emissionssuch as regulation or increased taxationthreaten their worldview or livelihood cannot provide an alternative view that is coherent by the standards of conventional scientific thinking. Instead, we suggest that people who reject the fact that the Earths climate is changing due to greenhouse gas emissions (or any other body of well-established scientific knowledge) oppose whatever inconvenient finding they are confronting in piece-meal fashion, rather than systematically, and without considering the implications of this rejection to the rest of the relevant scientific theory and findings. Hence, claims that the globe is cooling can coexist with claims that the observed warming is natural and that the human influence does not matter because warming is good for us. Coherence between these mutually contradictory opinions can only be achieved at a highly abstract level, namely that something must be wrong with the scientific evidence in order to justify a political position against climate change mitigation. This high-level coherence accompanied by contradictory subordinate propositions is a known attribute of conspiracist ideation, and conspiracism may be implicated when people reject well-established scientific propositions.

Springer Link IS a paywall.

The abstract makes zero sense, as for example it does not handle the matter of a whole lot of highly esteemed solar physicists who are strongly warning that the sun may be entering a cooling phase.