Jim D:
“Who decides who “the mainstream” is?”
No-one has to, they know themselves.
“Is it someone who agrees with every word and the full range in the latest IPCC report? You won’t find anyone that fits that profile.”
Ridiculous straw man. This is not about detail. This is about a fundamental falsity that mainstream science supports a high certainty of imminent (decades) global catastrophe, the narrative of which is propagated by all the listed authority sources in the most existential and emotive terms, and in the name of mainstream science. And no-one needs nomination to speak the truth regarding their misrepresentation.
“…to attack…”
Who said anything about attack? To respectfully say that mainstream science does not support the catastrophe narrative is not to attack. The listed authorities are not propagating this narrative for nefarious reasons, but because they believe it. If the mainstream science community doesn’t correct their gross error, how will they ever discover the truth?
“What are the practicalities of your proposal?”
Keep it simple. Look at all the exampled catastrophe narrative. It says in different forms that mainstream science supports a high certainty of imminent global catastrophe. Point out that this is wrong when further propagation occurs. With the main error removed, details about what mainstream science really says will emerge. No science detail actually needed from the mainstream science community for this correction of fundamental falsity; detailed engagement will follow once the obscuring fire of false narrative is removed.
“Maybe you would like “the mainstream” to get together in an op-ed to correct the politicians?”
Eminently sensible.
“They won’t unless the politician has said something counter to the science…”
Presidents, prime ministers, high ministers, UN elite, religious leaders, NGOs, influencers, businesses and many other authority orgs and individuals are every day (across many years) saying something that is in fundamental disagreement with mainstream science, I.e. that it supports a high certainty of imminent global catastrophe, which it doesn’t.
“…Macron saying it would be the end of the Earth…”
Exactly, and many more like it, in the most emotive deliveries. And he, like all the other authority sources, underwrites this scenario as being the judgement of mainstream science. How are their publics supposed to know they are wrong unless the mainstream science community itself corrects the misrepresention?
“…so you would have some scientist come on TV and say it won’t be the end of the Earth…”
Great idea, each time countering this emotive false narrative. Then, eventually, the truth of what mainstream science actually says, will emerge.
I’m sure you recall all the consensus messaging. There is much opinion on its good or ills, but most is irrelevant in the sense that such messaging in the public domain s not generally linked to mainstream science output anyhow, but to catastrophe narrative. So all those authorities are deploying ‘the agreement of all our world’s best scientists’ or whatever other consensus description, 97% or whatever, not for what mainstream science actually says anyhow, but to underwrite a high certainty of imminent global catastrophe. This is simply false, only a small minority of scientists support that concept. You agree that this is not what mainstream science says, but you insist on giving a free pass to all the authority sources saying it. I presume you are not part of the mainstream science community, but even your free pass, along with the same from thousands of others, contributes to perpetuating the most fundamental and well represented falsity in the domain.