I don’t think so. There were a few things that jumped out at me.

1. I literally went through all the comments. All of them. Just finished a second pass a few minutes ago. In the commentary she says she hasn’t read either of them for quite a while.

So how can she claim to know what they’re writing now? It just so happens that there’s an anti-JW and UH mob brewing right now that has been gathering more steam. There have been a lot of articles about them both recently. Doesn’t the timing of writing about how awful "doomer porn" is seem somewhat peculiar given she hasn’t read them in quite some time? It’s not like there’s not a shortage or other pessimistic or doomer environmentalists out there. Might it be because she’s looking to divert traffic to her other work and/or gain followers by jumping on a bash JW and UH bandwagon?

2. She chose to employ 2nd person plural. You usually see this in persuasive pieces. It’s a well known propaganda tactic, especially on people who are already primed to think a certain way. She tried to deny it when I called her out on it but read and decide for yourself. She’s trying to persuade you how these pieces make you feel, not ask pertinent questions, give legitimate critiques, or invite you to explore a named alternative. She’s also definitely bashing two particular authors. Also deeply suspicious.

3. Her choice of wording and language is straight from other bashers. What’s the likelihood of that happening? 7 times or more (I stopped counting) in one article? Going back to point #1, it’s likely that she’s regurgitating other talking points from those bashers who definitely have their own agenda rather than doing her own work, thinking her own thoughts, drawing her own conclusions, or even using her own words. Why do that except for financial gain? I’m hard pressed to think of another reason other than being a puppet, tbh, or just going along with the crowd.

4. In the article she specifically criticized and accused them of using "doomer articles" to make money. No other reason. Didn’t even entertain the notion that they might be doing it because they care about the world. Yet her article, which will ride those mob coattails whether she intended that or not is metered. She will make money off this article. Given the engagement and a glance through her other work, this one will be her heavy hitter, financially. How is that not the most blatant hypocrisy?

4. As far as I’m aware, you don’t make money off of comments. You have to do them as their own articles to make any money. And I haven’t done that. My comments here are not metered so I won’t be making any money off them. I won’t deny this article has inspired some thoughts that may find their way into an article. Although I went after the author pretty hard in the comments because I felt it deserved a good hard critique, I won’t be mentioning her specifically or bashing the other JW and UH bashers in it. I can’t promise it won’t be a scolding article though, cause jeez. Just wow.

Thanks for the question. It’s a fair one. Hope this clarifies my reasoning.