His opinions were based on misrepresentation of a paper he failed to properly cite.
And his bias is obvious since its the only filter he used in writing his article.
The author proposed that only one of Barret's points was 'flat out wrong'.
Apart from the he disagreed with Barret, but that's just his opinion... he didn't do anything to support his opinion other than say he collected the data and was certain of his opinion.
Here you are Mr Hat, supporting the opinions of someone that has chosen to study 'conspiracy theorists'.
Can you explain why anyone would deem that a subject worthy of academic study? It would seem not.
To me, that would seem like a bizarre and pointless waste of time. Hardly the sort of decision a well balanced person would take.
So come on, Mr Hat, why would anyone study 'truthers'?
Like I said, so what?