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.
The article is freely available. Maybe springer is normally a paywall? It says "open access" at the top of the page, then explains that this article is freely available to anyone and everyone. I could get the _exact_ quote.
Here is the conclusions.
2 Conclusion
There is considerable evidence that the rejection of (climate) science involves a component of conspiracist discourse. In this article, we provided preliminary evidence that the pseudo-scientific arguments that underpin climate science denial are mutually incoherent, which is a known attribute of conspiracist ideation. The lack of mechanisms to self-correct the scientific incoherencies manifest in denialist discourse further evidences that this is not the level at which rational activity is focused, and we must move to a higher level, looking at the role of conspiracist ideation in the political realm. At that political level, climate denial achieves coherence in its uniform and unifying opposition to GHG emission cuts. The coherent political stance of denial may not be undercut by its scientific incoherence. Climate science denial is therefore perhaps best understood as a rational activity that replaces a coherent body of science with an incoherent and conspiracist body of pseudo-science for political reasons and with considerable political coherence and effectiveness.