On the question of “fact checking” – The term itself is propaganda. The implication is always that if the “facts” could just be settled, so would the policy debate.
I think that is profoundly (and perhaps willfully) wrong. It is the same thing as claiming the imprimatur of “science” to defend your position.
Just because “the science is settled” (and, btw, it isn’t. That’s not how science works) it does not follow that the policy is settled.