This is an inherently flawed strategy. If you truly wish to advocate for a particular moral or ethical position, the worst thing you can do is tie that position to a false scientific conclusion. Doing so allows opponents to attack your moral position by attacking the pseudoscience to which you have anchored it. You are far better off acknowledging legitimate science and advocating for your moral position on moral grounds. If you ideologically favor free markets, don’t deny global warming, rather offer free-market solutions.
Wow
