If it were true that 'there aren't enough "climate sceptics" to do anything because sceince'", why does the BBC have fact checkers, and even this turnip "Reporting on climate change disinformation for #DenialFiles"
Compare the completely neutral language that the @BBC use to report dangerous, disruptive, and costly XR protests and claims with its descriptions of people who disagree with the climate agenda and who simply write...
@BBC Damage to property and to thousands of people's lives... "nowt to see here", say the BBC.
But object to wind energy because you have technical expertise in the field... And the BBC will tell everyone that you're a dangerous force, funded by Russian oligarchs, big oil...
Did you notice that, whereas the BBC is keen to 'fact check' critics of green politics & counter the 'misinformation' of 'extremists', it is reluctant to scrutinise the claims of XR.
Who is the greater threat to society?
When did you last see a climate sceptic blocking a road?
Where did those lunatics get their false understanding of the world from, which motivated them to commit acts dangerous acts of property damage and obstruction?
Where were the fact-checkers?
This idiot thinks that this BBC article is criticism and 'fact checking' of XR.
The BBC claimed "The research comes as many international albatross populations are in trouble."
"Some data from 2017 suggests the number of breeding pairs of the species are a little more than half of what they were in the 1980s."
How awful, right?
The BBC article was based on this research published in The Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
"Environmental variability directly affects the prevalence of divorce in monogamous albatrosses" - as the sea gets warmer because of us, more birds suffer.
Billionaire Bill also funds weirdo NGOs that produce stories that get uncritically reproduced in the Guardian...
... Which Bill also funds...
And Billionaire Bill also funds BBC Media Action, which produces content for the World Service, which also reproduces the weirdo NGO's conspiracy theories and misinformation uncritically...
They're adamant that "Tactics have pivoted from outright climate denial to attempts to frame climate change through a culture wars lens". But sceptics have been consistent in arguing that the issues are the costs of policies: jobs, money, freedoms &c &c... NOT culture war stuff.
It is the likes of @ISDglobal's framing that has shifted to 'culture wars', because it's a convenient peg on which to hang the issue, and by which to belittle dissenting opinion as a skirmish in a broader social phenomenon, that resonates with their analysis and remit.