> On an average day during the period studied, 25% of all tweets about the climate crisis came from bots. This proportion was higher in certain topics – bots were responsible for 38% of tweets about “fake science” and 28% of all tweets about the petroleum giant Exxon.

Meaningless without a baseline percentage of all tweets that are fake.

> “More often than not, they turn out to have all the fingerprints of bots,” he said. “The more denialist trolls are out there, the more likely people will think that there is a diversity of opinion and hence will weaken their support for climate science.

The article doesn't discuss what any of these fingerprints are.

> Thomas Marlow, a PhD candidate at Brown who led the study, said the research came about as he and his colleagues are “always kind of wondering why there’s persistent levels of denial about something that the science is more or less settled on”.

How any self-styled scientist can claim something a complex as the earth's atmospheric behavior is "settled" is beyond me.

Just recently, a study appeared in a peer-reviewed journal by a non-"denialist" group regarding the outsized effect of CFCs on polar warming:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00108-2