Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 35. (Read 636443 times)

Lol you babbling retard. I am not part of any education institution. I clicked on it and was able to read it. That was it.

Why you guys have such problems, I don't know. I should try from another browser without the cookies I suppose... OH well, I'm sure it'd be some other bullshit so you can cognitively be at peace with yourself. That paper explains why you guys think the way you do. If you had the capacity to read it objectively and apply it within the framework of your own world views, you'd understand how solidly it nails what you're about.

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 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.

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.

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 emissions—such as regulation or increased taxation—threaten 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 Earth’s 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.

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

Very interesting read.