The article does not talk about climate change in depth. It briefly mentions climate skepticism as an example of "Social media platforms have supercharged battl

The article does not talk about climate change in depth. It briefly mentions climate skepticism as an example of "Social media platforms have supercharged battles over scientific evidence" and implicitly compares it to the CFS activism which is the subject of the article, as well as anti-vaccine and anti-GMO activism. Proving the point of the article with respect to climate change would have involved posting the consensus view, and that starting a toxic discussion. But you just made a toxic post from the get-go.