“But out of 1145 participants, only ten agreed that the moon landing was a hoax!” he said. “Of the study’s participants, 97.8% who thought that climate science was a hoax, did not think that the moon landing also a hoax.”
So what? This doesn't necessarily invalidate the argument.
Curiously though, it contributes to falsely exaggerated stereotyping, in the sense that given the title and abstract I might expect a far greater percentage (>2.2%) of moon landing disbelievers among climate change disbelievers until until I take time to read through column 8 of table 3 on a potentially publicly inaccessible pdf. Will the journalists report these details? Maybe. Maybe not. Which plays into a larger possible tendency in social psychology: It's a poor choice to publish negative sterotype about groups supported by your social justice allies (most of the field, apparently), but it may be more warmly received to sterotype the political opposition, easiest with the low hanging fruit of conspiratorial right wingers.
Nobody ever claimed it did. The "what" is that it shows the evidence presented in the paper is bad for that argument. That says nothing about the truth of the argument.
So what? This doesn't necessarily invalidate the argument.