Parking global warming

It is said, that if you navigate a super-tanker, that you need to think miles ahead because of the time it takes the super-tanker to respond. Likewise, government is a bit dim-witted and ideas tend to get absorbed more in a process similar to osmosis than any rational thought process.
So, I have always used the analogy of a long necked dinosaur with a small brain and a very long neck for government:

Even if you metaphorically kick them between the legs so to speak, it takes years for the knowledge of that to work its way up through the various organs of government to the tiny brain located at some distance from where the kick was aimed.
But, the problem with long-time delay systems like this is that they are heavily prone to overshoot. That is to say, we sceptic who have for decades been attacking the stupid of the dim-witted environmentalists, may at some point find that the pendulum swings the other way, and that far from getting common sense, that we get the opposite scam starting to develop. So, whether a new global cooling scare, or perhaps a wholesale rejection of any concerns for the environment, or worse a totally rejection of rational science and some kind of religious government, the last thing most sceptics want is to end up with another group of money-grabbing business people using our hard work to line their own pockets by giving the pendulum we struggled so hard to “park” an extra push at the last minute to create the “alternative scam”.
What we sceptics always wanted was just good plain common sense. What we always rejected vehemently, was government policy controlled by those with their Snouts in the trough in academia and “BIG GREEN”. What we could get unless we park this scam carefully is just that.
Little by little, we are wining the argument. Climate no longer is a significant issue for most people. But that doesn’t mean that climate and weather are not a significant issue. Sceptics know that climate modelled based on massive CO2 warming are completely nuts. But that does not mean that we cannot gleam something of the future, particularly in the short term where short-term climate change is not only a significant issue but potentially one that could be forecast to some degree.

The Catastrophic Collapse of faith in Climate Academics

So, whilst there are clearly some academics who are beyond the pale in terms of ever deserving any credibility (and clearly deserve prison), within the bulk of academia there are various shades of “CO2 bandwagoneering”. And whilst they got the scale of effects of CO2 disastrously wrong, they were completely arrogant about their own ability and totally dismissive of better people outside academia, there may be significant other research that could save lives.
But the danger, is that should the pendulum on climate swing too far against “academia”, we may well find that the disreputable behaviour of all academics on climate may nurture a  strong anti-science movement which then seeks to discredit all scientific research. To be honest, given the “replication crisis”, perhaps all science needs a good kick up the backside and told in on uncertain terms to improve its behaviour.That in itself is something that will be very difficult to achieve given the criminal behaviour we saw in the Climategate inquiries.
They all need criticism, but neither do we sceptics want to throw out the baby with the bathwater so to speak. Even if almost all academics were in some way culpable for the climate madness and insane energy policy that we now have, that doesn’t mean that their other work is also all mad or insane.
It does mean that we expect a far higher proportion of stupid research and it does mean no research from academia can just be accepted on face value, but some, even most of its output could be valuable and should not just be dismissed.
It also means, that we need some serious reforms in academia to stop this idiocy happening again. Indeed, it is very important that a few academics do go to jail, because that seems to be the only kind of language they understand. It would drive home the point that academics like everyone else have to act responsible and not use their position to push politically inspired socially damaging policy which they know was not backed up by the evidence.
[By the way – it’s now snowing outside]
So, questions for the future:

• What is the appropriate level of concern over CO2?
• How do we sceptics keep the pressure up to get as quickly possible to this appropriate level of concern without over-shooting?
• How do we – the totally underfunded and under-resourced – ensure that we keep up enough pressure that we can be reasonably sure to stop the massively funded alarmist machine “jumping the fire gap” and getting the fire burning again?
• How do we ensure that enough pressure is kept up to ensure “lessons are learnt” and changes (that should have happened after Climategate) do happen, without putting too much pressure and getting an overshoot and too much backlash against academia?

Basically: how long is the neck, how tiny the brain, and how thick is the skull of government? How hard must we kick them between the legs for their tiny disconnected brain to register it? Dare I say it, can we actually do anything to stop this scam over-shooting? Given that we sceptics were intentionally denied a voice by government and had to create our own public voice from our own resources with so little money, and given the massive overwhelming resources of BIG GREEN and other scaremongerers who will undoubtedly seize whatever opportunities to push the pendulum the other way if its to their interest … you can’t blame us in any way if it overshoots as it will be entirely the fault of government.
But if it does, we sceptics risk yet again being the poorly funded ill-equipped small group not being listened to by the “tiny brain & long neck” of big government – having the “Goebels” big lie strategy of BIG GREEN used to discredit us – but if it overshoots, then having to push back the other way to stop the next scam.
In short, how do we land this scam?