In press nearly always means your never going to get to read it, and it not true anyway.
Sorry, I can't be here all the time, unlike some...
First of all you misquote the study , the headline states "Climate change deniers are either extreme FREE MARKETEERS OR CONSPIRACY THEORIST" (emphasis mine)
Secondly, I don't put my faith in any one completely, I read the paper and the post by deniers (including yours) confirm the the findings in the paper.
Thirdly, you call me an alarmist, while in fact I am a skeptic. Calling climate change deniers either extreme free marketeers or conspiracy theorists, is not alarmist it is factual.
And lastly, I put my faith in you when you drive your car on the same road, at the same time as I drive, that does not mean I put my faith in your ability as a climate scientist. (nor do I expect you to put your faith in my ability as a climate scientist.)
Does that answer your question?
Oh the irony.
On one hand you critcize, over and over again, that someone's paper has not been published (it is actually IN PRESS) and is not scientific while on the other hand you want us to judge this person's mental stability based on nothing more but a Youtube video.
<
It is IN PRESS as the paper itself says. That means that the journal has accepted it and has thus passed the peer-review process.
If you have any proof of the contrary, please share it with us. If you don't, shut the f*ck up.
It sounds like he is reading off a teleprompter or a premade script most likely he wrote it himself. You seem to be claiming he is weird based on his person. That is typical of a conspiracy theorist.
I noticed also that he has an unhealthy fascination with fascists. If you repeat a lie loud enough and long enough people will believe. That was proven to me last election. Some people want to be lied to. These moronic psychologists often publish gibberish like this. They tried to imply that Barry Goldwater was insane and about 10 thousand signed something to indicate that. Similar charges were implied for Romney whose only fault that he is a decent and moderate politically. They really have no limit to how far they will sink. I have heard jokingly that psychologists are the monk class of the leftist religion and sometimes they provide good evidence for that that charge.
One alarmist (Rolando) keeps saying that most deniers are conspiracy theorists based on an unscientific and unpublished paper by Stephan Lewandowsky, whose study consisted of posting a link to his survey on a few alarmist sites.
Does this man seem mentally stable to you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8wVfxoPqPA
Does this man seem to have an unbiased opinion of skeptics? Why is his paper still unpublished? Why do alarmists like ****** claim the paper is scientifically sound and has been published? Does repeating a lie somehow make it true?
