You want to provoke a preference cascade? The simplest way would probably be to formally conduct a survey of relevant scientists with anonymizing measures built in so that each individual can answer with their true preferences, but the aggregated results will still be credible to the community as a whole.
Falsifying climate policy premises extends to denying the roles of players whose actions contradict established narratives, witness the wholesale gaslighting of pre- Earth Day reports like the one Roger Revelle delivered to Lyndon Johnson years before he taught Al Gore Climate Science 101.
Excellent analysis here Quico. It is important to understand that Emission Reduction Alone constitutes the modern equivalent of a Stalinist Party Line, an ideological orthodoxy that ruthlessly suppresses dissent and enforces a lowest common denominator in climate policy. When Stalin's Soviet system finally collapsed after 1989, under the weight of its own contradictions, western haters of capitalism realised they had to switch from communism to environmentalism to mobilise public support. This agenda gradually coalesced into the idea that class war against the fossil fuel industry is the epitome of moral righteousness, now prosecuted by socialist-in-chief Gutteres of the UN. It is almost as if the Berlin Wall never fell as far as climate science is concerned, with their absurd fantasies that cutting emissions is possible and could mitigate climate change. Unfortunately, Earth scientists generally lack awareness of political science, and have gullibly gone along with this manipulation, due to a combination of ignorance and careerism. What I think is likely to happen soon is that commentary like yours will break into mass media, overcoming the current pervasive censorship. Genuine public conversation will finally be allowed about the utter absurdity of decarbonisation as a climate strategy, breaking down the current false opposition between emission reduction and climate denial as the only possible views. The moral urgency of increasing albedo has a sort of tectonic force, more like an impending earthquake than a volcano. The subterranean forces are building and the brittle consensus is about to break. The Gutteres party line requires suppression of facts, like Stalin with Lysenko. This is the sheerest hypocrisy for people who claim to follow science.
You want to provoke a preference cascade? The simplest way would probably be to formally conduct a survey of relevant scientists with anonymizing measures built in so that each individual can answer with their true preferences, but the aggregated results will still be credible to the community as a whole.
Falsifying climate policy premises extends to denying the roles of players whose actions contradict established narratives, witness the wholesale gaslighting of pre- Earth Day reports like the one Roger Revelle delivered to Lyndon Johnson years before he taught Al Gore Climate Science 101.
Excellent analysis here Quico. It is important to understand that Emission Reduction Alone constitutes the modern equivalent of a Stalinist Party Line, an ideological orthodoxy that ruthlessly suppresses dissent and enforces a lowest common denominator in climate policy. When Stalin's Soviet system finally collapsed after 1989, under the weight of its own contradictions, western haters of capitalism realised they had to switch from communism to environmentalism to mobilise public support. This agenda gradually coalesced into the idea that class war against the fossil fuel industry is the epitome of moral righteousness, now prosecuted by socialist-in-chief Gutteres of the UN. It is almost as if the Berlin Wall never fell as far as climate science is concerned, with their absurd fantasies that cutting emissions is possible and could mitigate climate change. Unfortunately, Earth scientists generally lack awareness of political science, and have gullibly gone along with this manipulation, due to a combination of ignorance and careerism. What I think is likely to happen soon is that commentary like yours will break into mass media, overcoming the current pervasive censorship. Genuine public conversation will finally be allowed about the utter absurdity of decarbonisation as a climate strategy, breaking down the current false opposition between emission reduction and climate denial as the only possible views. The moral urgency of increasing albedo has a sort of tectonic force, more like an impending earthquake than a volcano. The subterranean forces are building and the brittle consensus is about to break. The Gutteres party line requires suppression of facts, like Stalin with Lysenko. This is the sheerest hypocrisy for people who claim to follow science.