Perhaps your judgement should take dishonesty into account.
I put up a link to an article that criticizes the ecological establishment for dishonesty but from a political perspective diametrically opposed to yours. Your shared moral disapproval with these grass roots ecologists is of no use to you politically, because you are in fundamental political disagreement with their critique.
You have no hope whatsoever of winning them to your climate change sceptic and "states rights" perspective. It is only on the basis of the politics that I propose that your and their respective "grass roots" orientations could work together. Your grassroots perspective is a party-political perspective (as is theirs, of course).
Will both of you be able to be won over to an orientation that starts from Greece, where democracy originated??
Or will the internal political conflicts of the United States continue to be projected over the whole world as the internal political problems of planet Earth?
There are Europeans also, Eurosceptics, who have the same "states rights" perspective, equally unreal. The question today is control by the corporate media, and ways of dealing with it.
Corporate media is run by the same people (literally and essentially) who run the United Nations. If you think you're going to "deal" with them, then you are fantastically naive.
And yet a group of shrewd activists in an NGO managed to get through a moratorium that is in NO way to the liking of these dominant forces in the corporate media and in the UN. They did this through respecting the required mythology concerning chemtrails, i.e. that they don't exist.
In that way they have opened a loophole.
Perhaps the reason that you don't perceive that loophole is the same as the reason that you didn't perceive the loophole that opened up with the collapse of the USSR, or that you should have been calling with all your might for the abolition of the Soviet nuclear arsenal (to avert the re-establishment of business-as-usual "behind new masks").
You just let things happen and then respond to the new situation as if it is inevitable.
The states are the only entities that have the legal right to petition the federal government.
This has happened several times in U.S. history, so you may need to study a little more to understand this approach.
Perhaps you will have some chance of implementing a strategy of this kind if you can overcome the stereotyping of your politics that will be (and is) imposed by the corporate media, and if you can gain the trust of the other side of politics who also oppose the "corruption" of the ecological establishment (and their more powerful masters).
People like the authors of the article to which I posted the link.
The climate change debate is a divisive debate.
I am astounded when people tell me that arguing the truth is "divisive".
