I cried Wolf on Dangers of Climate Change, page-72

I get your point about opinions and if everyone did their own in depth research then it probably wouldn't be such a polarising topic as it is now, but they dont and as the saying goes "too many cooks spoil the broth". And now we have too many opinions which has spoilt the science, its really hard now to separate opinion from undistorted facts. You could do a quick google search and find arguments saying we have 5 years left before the arctic melts or arguments saying its all a scam by the elite.

My issue is, as you have alluded to, is "click bait" companies (hell even MSM) issuing articles which cherry pick data points for their arguments all for ad revenue. How many times on programs like Sunrise have you heard global warming being debated by "a panel of experts" like Prue McSweeney who is a journalist so has the platform and talent to voice her opinions but how much does she actually know about it. Or you get articles from more credible sources however they use a Dr of "Peace and Global Studies" but don't actually quote what degree they have. Or my favourite thing is using stats and graph segments that agree with a certain point of view.

Now some of the more vocal people in our society look at these articles/opinions and take them as fact. This in turn fuels unhealthy debate and extremism on both sides - exactly like what Mr Shellenburger did, which until a point years later where he has done enough study on the topic to interpret it better -or just changed his mind to make money off his new book, but i'm sure that couldn't possibly be a motive for his change of heart.

I suppose I'm delving more into more how do we ensure how do we balance the importance of free and healthy debate to avoiding either garbage articles or opinions from people that may have a platform but not the education which are nothing more than a money grab and quite frankly are more dangerous than people realise.