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.
I guess paying one's own money for gibberish makes it meaningful and more 'coherent' to some. To me, that it makes one more of a horses' ass.
I suppose that most people who punch through the pay-wall to get at such drivel actually use my tax dollars to do it though. For now.
I have no problem reading or debating an article.
But I strongly feel that an article that's paywalled cannot be presented as the subject of debate.
Side note: Not uncommonly, paywalled articles can be found somewhere else on the internet.
Yes, if someone gets through the paywall, then Springer has a stored cookie on their computer which allows the access. Whatever/however. DWMA noted he didn't even see that on his machine, so his actions were not intentional.