"There is a negligible amount of literature about climate alarmism compared to climate scepticism, suggesting it is significantly less prevalent. As such, the focus for this article is on climate scepticism."
I also noticed that sentence. Circular reasoning out in the open.
I don't personally see over-alarmist info as being as prevalent or as effective as denialist info, in large part because simply prudently-alarmist info in line with scientific predictions has enough trouble getting traction, this was not the way to rationalize an exclusion of that topic from the article.
