Notice how all the (supposed) cleverness in these proposals is directed towards refuting the consensus about the causal mechanisms of climate change. Not a word about novel approaches to mitigation or adaptation.
Also, has anyone noticed how the people who fuss most loudly about being intellectually pure scientists and alleging the existence of a conspiracy among climatologists are perfectly comfortable with sweeping predictions based on astonishingly rudimentary models where economics are concerned.
This is the case in climate research. We know from the East Anglia leak that at least some climatologists intentionally interfere with those who disagree with them. (To be sure, they may have very good reasons to be frustrated with those opponents, but that doesn't excuse the behavior)
is directed towards refuting the consensus about the causal mechanisms of climate change.
That was the first thing I noticed. I'm of the "lukewarm" mindset on climate, so I'm looking at both camps as an outsider. And I cannot fathom why either of them get so worked up about the "anthropogenic" part of it. If it's going to cause problems for us in the future, I just don't get why it matters if it's our fault or not. If something bad's going to happen, we ought to try to avoid that outcome whether it's coming from natural causes or is ultimately self-inflicted.
And further more it is for the phycological benefit of the main team knowing that everything they do is going to be attacked. That they can't just rest on their laurels.
With that said. If the goal is miss-guided but the "Red team" actually does good science (and not propaganda) it might have the same effect anyway.