Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[googie4]

I remember this thread from more than 2 years ago. I can't believe it has gotten this large.

[1713949469]

1713949469

[1713949469]

1713949469

[1713949469]

1713949469

[1713949469]

1713949469

[1713949469]

1713949469

[1713949469]

1713949469

[eminem90]

Unfortunately the Earth's climate is getting worse and worse. Planet polluting emissions. And the power is idle. We need to adopt laws on preservation of the environment. And it should be done immediately! Large production should move to alternative energy sources that conserve nature. But it is not profitable oil tycoons.

[hdbuck]

Leonardo DiCaprio Reveals The Trailer For His Climate Change Doc Before The Flood

http://www.hotpress.com/Leonardo-Di-Caprio/news/Leonardo-DiCaprio-Reveals-The-Trailer-For-His-Climate-Change-Doc-iBefore-The-Floodi/18932412.html

[dwma]

Leonardo DiCaprio Reveals The Trailer For His Climate Change Doc Before The Flood

http://www.hotpress.com/Leonardo-Di-Caprio/news/Leonardo-DiCaprio-Reveals-The-Trailer-For-His-Climate-Change-Doc-iBefore-The-Floodi/18932412.html

Little pictures for the feeble minded to rally around. Helps you live in your little bias bubble.

Intellectual cowards.

[tvbcof]

...
Here is the abstract.

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.

As framed, the 'consensus' on anthropogenic global climate change attributable to global greenhouse gasses is even worse than 'incoherent.'  It is both logically and observably wrong.

The idea that a certain group of people have conceived of and implemented the scam in order to justify controlling the economic activity of the planet is both coherent and matches the evidence extraordinarily well.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 - you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation."

http://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/29623-figueres-first-time-the-world-economy-is-transformed-intentionally

[Spendulus]

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.

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.

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.

[tvbcof]

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.

[Spendulus]

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.

[dwma]

...
Here is the abstract.

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.

As framed, the 'consensus' on anthropogenic global climate change attributable to global greenhouse gasses is even worse than 'incoherent.'  It is both logically and observably wrong.

The idea that a certain group of people have conceived of and implemented the scam in order to justify controlling the economic activity of the planet is both coherent and matches the evidence extraordinarily well.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 - you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation."

http://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/29623-figueres-first-time-the-world-economy-is-transformed-intentionally

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/science/flooding-of-coast-caused-by-global-warming-has-already-begun.html

You're right, nothing happening. All made up. Just random fluctutations that have oddly been predicted for decades to CONTROL YOU.

Science sucks when it doesn't fit with our world belief. Really, it sucks that there isn't some nice solution that doesn't require regulations. This doesn't make reality not reality.

[dwma]

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.

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.

Epic that you turn this into some anti-government rant.  You guys are like so far out there.  You got the feds looking in your windows at night or what?

[tvbcof]

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.

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 can see from the abstract that the screed is full of shit.  Any quasi-scientist understand that one rarely 'knows' anything, making the suggestion that we 'deniers' hold mutually conflicting views absurd.

I was actually disposed to believing that 'global warming' was real until I actually looked into the science behind it.  This occurred after wilikon started this thread in fact.  It only took a few days of study for me to realize that it was a sham of epic proportions, and almost everything I've seen since only strengthens my hypothesis here.  Again, the 'anthropogenic global warming is a hoax' hypothesis is remarkably coherent and corroborated by observations.

It may have escaped you, but the models upon which a lot of policy and false 'hope' were based are old enough not to be verified against reality and they have failed miserably.  Slightly less well known is that while human generated fossil fuel use _rates_ have increased it is not matched in global CO2 concentrations which have not even realized an observable impact.  In scientific terms, this means that your theory is proven false.  Yet people want to stick with the pre-supposed solution (which is, give a certain group of people vast amounts of money and control of the global economy) for some reason.  <chuckle>

Epic that you turn this into some anti-government rant.  You guys are like so far out there.  You got the feds looking in your windows at night or what?

Ever heard of a guy named Snowden?

[dwma]

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.

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 can see from the abstract that the screed is full of shit.  Any quasi-scientist understand that one rarely 'knows' anything, making the suggestion that we 'deniers' hold mutually conflicting views absurd.

I was actually disposed to believing that 'global warming' was real until I actually looked into the science behind it.  This occurred after wilikon started this thread in fact.  It only took a few days of study for me to realize that it was a sham of epic proportions, and almost everything I've seen since only strengthens my hypothesis here.  Again, the 'anthropogenic global warming is a hoax' hypothesis is remarkably coherent and corroborated by observations.

It may have escaped you, but the models upon which a lot of policy and false 'hope' were based are old enough not to be verified against reality and they have failed miserably.  Slightly less well known is that while human generated fossil fuel use _rates_ have increased it is not matched in global CO2 concentrations which have not even realized an observable impact.  In scientific terms, this means that your theory is proven false.  Yet people want to stick with the pre-supposed solution (which is, give a certain group of people vast amounts of money and control of the global economy) for some reason.  <chuckle>

Epic that you turn this into some anti-government rant.  You guys are like so far out there.  You got the feds looking in your windows at night or what?

Ever heard of a guy named Snowden?

You guys are so pumped full of the biases of anti-government that you can't help yourselves. You MUST save face.

We can argue about the science all day and you guys will keep saying it is wrong. I find it exceptionally coincidental that people have been saying this would be happening for decades and we're seeing all sorts of direct evidence. I guess it was just coincidence that global warming is falling directly in line with what scientists have been saying for decades... or solar flares?  What do you guys blame it on?  Solar maximum?

Look, I agree government types want power. Thats why I describe myself as a libertarian liberal. Although I understand how libertarianism falls apart in so many areas and can only be used as an ideal philosophy to achieve, not as a direct framework to create all (limit?) laws. I don't like stupid bureaucrats. I grew up in the public education system and managed to score top 1/2 % on the SAT while barely graduating HS and learning next to nothing there. If I'd had better teachers in some classes, my life could have been better. Instead, I got goofy government workers and I was too young to realize their incompetence.  I think that formed my anti-authoritarian roots.

However you guys got this one wrong. It is sad. Look into yourself and your biases and realize that we should do something about this ASAP. Save all the anti-government passion for things where they really do not know what they're talking about.

[dwma]

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.

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 can see from the abstract that the screed is full of shit.  Any quasi-scientist understand that one rarely 'knows' anything, making the suggestion that we 'deniers' hold mutually conflicting views absurd.

I was actually disposed to believing that 'global warming' was real until I actually looked into the science behind it.  This occurred after wilikon started this thread in fact.  It only took a few days of study for me to realize that it was a sham of epic proportions, and almost everything I've seen since only strengthens my hypothesis here.  Again, the 'anthropogenic global warming is a hoax' hypothesis is remarkably coherent and corroborated by observations.

It may have escaped you, but the models upon which a lot of policy and false 'hope' were based are old enough not to be verified against reality and they have failed miserably.  Slightly less well known is that while human generated fossil fuel use _rates_ have increased it is not matched in global CO2 concentrations which have not even realized an observable impact.  In scientific terms, this means that your theory is proven false.  Yet people want to stick with the pre-supposed solution (which is, give a certain group of people vast amounts of money and control of the global economy) for some reason.  <chuckle>

Epic that you turn this into some anti-government rant.  You guys are like so far out there.  You got the feds looking in your windows at night or what?

Ever heard of a guy named Snowden?

See you said any 'any quasi-scientist knows that one rarely knows anything'. Then later you say -"   Slightly less well known is that while human generated fossil fuel use _rates_ have increased it is not matched in global CO2 concentrations which have not even realized an observable impact.  In scientific terms, this means that your theory is proven false." 

These 2 states are at great contradiction.  You guys are so full of them.  THe paper lays them out. If you really are a smart guy, then you should strive to be a smart guy, and you should strive to eliminate all these weird contradictions in your reasoning that allow your biases to perpetuate.

[notbatman]

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.

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 can see from the abstract that the screed is full of shit.  Any quasi-scientist understand that one rarely 'knows' anything, making the suggestion that we 'deniers' hold mutually conflicting views absurd.

I was actually disposed to believing that 'global warming' was real until I actually looked into the science behind it.  This occurred after wilikon started this thread in fact.  It only took a few days of study for me to realize that it was a sham of epic proportions, and almost everything I've seen since only strengthens my hypothesis here.  Again, the 'anthropogenic global warming is a hoax' hypothesis is remarkably coherent and corroborated by observations.

It may have escaped you, but the models upon which a lot of policy and false 'hope' were based are old enough not to be verified against reality and they have failed miserably.  Slightly less well known is that while human generated fossil fuel use _rates_ have increased it is not matched in global CO2 concentrations which have not even realized an observable impact.  In scientific terms, this means that your theory is proven false.  Yet people want to stick with the pre-supposed solution (which is, give a certain group of people vast amounts of money and control of the global economy) for some reason.  <chuckle>

Epic that you turn this into some anti-government rant.  You guys are like so far out there.  You got the feds looking in your windows at night or what?

Ever heard of a guy named Snowden?

You guys are so pumped full of the biases of anti-government that you can't help yourselves. You MUST save face.

We can argue about the science all day and you guys will keep saying it is wrong. I find it exceptionally coincidental that people have been saying this would be happening for decades and we're seeing all sorts of direct evidence. I guess it was just coincidence that global warming is falling directly in line with what scientists have been saying for decades... or solar flares?  What do you guys blame it on? 

I blame global warming on abuse of the widespread ignorance regarding the fact that Earth is a flat motionless plane. The more money they scam out of people with their fake globe Earth schemes the hotter it gets.

[Spendulus]

....THe paper lays them out. If you really are a smart guy, then you should strive to be a smart guy, and you should strive to eliminate all these weird contradictions in your reasoning that allow your biases to perpetuate.

You mean the paper which only exists in your no-paywall-world?

SPRINGER LINK IS IN YOUR URL.

Springer Link is a PAYWALL.

In other words, everyone should just take your word for DA TRUTHIE.

lol....troll on...

Oh, and by the way, "contradictions" in science indicate imperfect understanding of the science, not problems in the minds of people.  This is always the state of affairs on the cutting edge of any scientific field. 


For example, take the following two assertions.

Solar scientists say the sun may be entering a cool phase.
Global warming is REAL!

Only in your small mind do these two statements have to be "Reconciled."  You don't even seem to understand the scientific method, please stop trying to lecture people who have studied the issues for decades.

[tvbcof]

See you said any 'any quasi-scientist knows that one rarely knows anything'. Then later you say -"   Slightly less well known is that while human generated fossil fuel use _rates_ have increased it is not matched in global CO2 concentrations which have not even realized an observable impact.  In scientific terms, this means that your theory is proven false." 

These 2 states are at great contradiction.  You guys are so full of them.  THe paper lays them out. If you really are a smart guy, then you should strive to be a smart guy, and you should strive to eliminate all these weird contradictions in your reasoning that allow your biases to perpetuate.

To me, and to genuine scientists, 'know' means 100% and this is a very very high bar.  I'll give you a little lesson about how to operate in such a challenging world:

The continuous nature of the slope describing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is measured at Mao Loa (sic?), say, 99% likely to be accurate enough to represent a delta if it did indeed exist.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/4keeling3.jpg

The computation of anthropogenic CO2 releases based on economic records is, say, 99% likely to be accurate enough to compute a significant delta at around y2k.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/CO2_Emissions_IPCC_1024.jpg

(By chance, both plots I found happen to be from a warmunista shill site (which doesn't proxy, so click to view.))

So clearly, the idea that humans are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, and it builds up to cause a problem, has at least 98% chance of being wrong.  Roughly, but close enough.

This is about as close to 'knowing' something as is practical in the real world.

As it happens, there are a whole chain of additional ludicrously small probability suggestions and/or utter absurdities between the theory that handing over $100's of TRILLIONS of dollars over the next decade and control of the global economy to a gaggle of bozos at the UN will save the planet certain death.  It's hard to believe that anyone above idiot rating would actually believe this, but so it seems to be.  A good illustration of the quality of propaganda that money can buy these days.

https://www.corbettreport.com/and-now-for-the-100-trillion-dollar-bankster-climate-swindle/

[dwma]

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.

[dwma]

See you said any 'any quasi-scientist knows that one rarely knows anything'. Then later you say -"   Slightly less well known is that while human generated fossil fuel use _rates_ have increased it is not matched in global CO2 concentrations which have not even realized an observable impact.  In scientific terms, this means that your theory is proven false." 

These 2 states are at great contradiction.  You guys are so full of them.  THe paper lays them out. If you really are a smart guy, then you should strive to be a smart guy, and you should strive to eliminate all these weird contradictions in your reasoning that allow your biases to perpetuate.

To me, and to genuine scientists, 'know' means 100% and this is a very very high bar.  I'll give you a little lesson about how to operate in such a challenging world:

The continuous nature of the slope describing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is measured at Mao Loa (sic?), say, 99% likely to be accurate enough to represent a delta if it did indeed exist.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/4keeling3.jpg

The computation of anthropogenic CO2 releases based on economic records is, say, 99% likely to be accurate enough to compute a significant delta at around y2k.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/CO2_Emissions_IPCC_1024.jpg

(By chance, both plots I found happen to be from a warmunista shill site (which doesn't proxy, so click to view.))

So clearly, the idea that humans are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, and it builds up to cause a problem, has at least 98% chance of being wrong.  Roughly, but close enough.

This is about as close to 'knowing' something as is practical in the real world.

As it happens, there are a whole chain of additional ludicrously small probability suggestions and/or utter absurdities between the theory that handing over $100's of TRILLIONS of dollars over the next decade and control of the global economy to a gaggle of bozos at the UN will save the planet certain death.  It's hard to believe that anyone above idiot rating would actually believe this, but so it seems to be.  A good illustration of the quality of propaganda that money can buy these days.

https://www.corbettreport.com/and-now-for-the-100-trillion-dollar-bankster-climate-swindle/

At one point you said this is all "proven". Previously you said it was rare for anyone to know anything. Which is it?  YOu basically give credibility to the paper I posted. You guys have huge cognitive biases because of your political views which unfortunately prevent you from looking at things logically. You can look all around and see direct evidence of the earth warming at a rate far greater than anything in man's history. Maybe not in your backyard... but.. it doesn't take much.

[tvbcof]

...
Here is the conclusions.

2 Conclusion

There is considerable evidence that the rejection of (climate) science involves a component of conspiracist discourse....pseudo-scientific...incoherent, which ...conspiracist ideation....blah, blah, blah.

Yet another attempt to lay a foundation to attack real science in the court system since doing so in the lab or on the chalkboard is becoming increasingly impossible as the years drift by and the fraudulent model world vanished over the horizon.

[Spendulus]

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.

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.)