This to me is a really compelling argument, I wish this approach was more common.
A nitpick:
> I laugh at the idea that scientists...have a "huge monetary incentive" to push this "agenda"
I'm guessing a bit at what you're thinking here, but I think it could be argued that not losing your job could be considered a "huge monetary incentive". I've certainly experienced extreme "peer pressure" to sign off on something that I disagree with before, the idea that office politics literally doesn't exist in the field of science seems quite unlikely to me.
Oh sure, but it's not related to global warming per se. And specifically, the monetary incentive, in terms of actual dollar amounts, is absurdly tilted toward those who hold vast fossil fuel portfolios.
A nitpick:
> I laugh at the idea that scientists...have a "huge monetary incentive" to push this "agenda"
I'm guessing a bit at what you're thinking here, but I think it could be argued that not losing your job could be considered a "huge monetary incentive". I've certainly experienced extreme "peer pressure" to sign off on something that I disagree with before, the idea that office politics literally doesn't exist in the field of science seems quite unlikely to me.