I was being serious, although if (and I have no reason to doubt) Logos01 is correct then my idea is probably a bad one.

enough people distrust sound science as it is.

True but not enough people distrust unsound science or political advocates who pose as scientists.

I thing there's some sort of reasoning error in that last bit, but I can't think of how to express it. My counter-argument would be something about how the benefit of reducing trust in bad science by having scientists lie would be less than the harm caused by the increased distrust in good science.