Quote from: Spendulus on September 29, 2016, 11:02:46 PM

Quote from: dwma on September 29, 2016, 10:45:54 PM

Quote from: Spendulus on September 28, 2016, 07:41:30 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on September 28, 2016, 07:19:56 PM

Quote from: Spendulus on September 28, 2016, 07:12:00 PM

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.

Quote

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.

Not my problem why your little article comes up on your browser and not mine.

So....let's run a little reality check here.

Anybody else on this form able to access the article?

(By the way, my spell checker is point out a dozen spelling errors in your "abstract." Thought you might want to let your climate preacher boy know.)

I tried 2 different browsers. I will send the link to another person shortly.

Wow, this is so solid. You just prove it.

ideation is a word ! It is spelled correctly. I can't help it google has a goofy spellchecker?
conspiracist is a word and spelled correctly.
incoherencies is a word and spelled correctly.

It is bizarre. You try to belittle this stuff so hard. You are now telling me words don't exist when anyone who went to college should be familar with ideation and conspiracist etc.

Give up trying to act intellectual.

You sir are a total fucking sham.

PS - You also can't operate a web-browser or have some bizarre out of data software. The link works all over. Not sure if you are a liar or just stupid. Please tell me which or we can stand with simple coward.