In a note to the press, the authors vow that "we never advocate lying on climate change." But as Lusk noted in an earlier comment on the paper, the authors constructed "a mathematical model to suggest that exaggerating consequences can have positive impacts by getting people to 'do the right thing.'" There's also this statement: "Our key result — that overpessimism alleviates the underparticipation problem — implies that the propaganda of climate skepticism may be detrimental to the society." So maybe they would "never advocate lying on climate change," yet they approve of using propaganda and silencing or marginalizing skeptics?
Flashback: Shock peer-reviewed paper provides ‘rationale’ for ‘information manipulation’ & ‘exaggeration’ in global warming debate to ‘enhance global welfare’