On top of that, in her more recent videos I get a weird feeling of her leaving some things purposefully ambiguous for that audience.
For example in the video to this article she was using a lot of climate science examples, which will be interpreted in a certain way by the "science is a scam" crowd. I'm not sure she is doing this on purpose (I have the impression she strongly believes in climate change), accidentally or if I'm just oversensitive to some things.
I think it's normal and expected that people who are skeptical are looking for people who will take their questions and concerns seriously.
I am very personally convinced of anthropogenic climate change and that it's a serious risk for humanity. I still believe that it's important to take people's questions seriously, and to respect that people who aren't convinced have been making their best attempt at understanding the world. For these people, biased stories that don't put numbers in context are seen as deceptive, and I think that perception is legitimate. The only way to actually meaningfully reach them is to credibly demonstrate that you're actually checking the evidence that disagrees with your conclusion.
For example in the video to this article she was using a lot of climate science examples, which will be interpreted in a certain way by the "science is a scam" crowd. I'm not sure she is doing this on purpose (I have the impression she strongly believes in climate change), accidentally or if I'm just oversensitive to some things.