As an AI model, I may not be familiar with the specific climate change activists you refer to, and cannot evaluate their statements without more information. For example, while it might be an exaggeration to claim that climate change will destroy the entire planet, it could be reasonable to suggest that it will have serious consequences that will affect most people's lives.

The effects of climate change are wide-ranging and nuanced, so it can be difficult to cover in full detail. As a result, statements from non-experts sometimes oversimplify the details, such as through the use of hyperbole. Someone seeing or hearing such statements out of context might claim that one side is lying because they are exaggerating, and as a result claim that climate change isn't very severe at all.

In this case, such a claim would be incorrect. Specifically, it would be an example of the "fallacy fallacy", which is the mistaken belief that a conclusion is wrong solely because one of its supporting arguments is wrong. In other words, just because one climate change activist was wrong doesn't mean that all climate change activists are wrong.

Ultimately, climate change is a serious and nuanced issue that needs to be handled thoughtfully and with care.
spam fails_task lang_mismatch pii not_appropriate hate_speech sexual_content quality toxicity humor helpfulness creativity violence