<div>Some people will argue that climate science is too complex and specialized for an educated layperson to comprehend, so the subject should be left to those with PhD level knowledge. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Of course, such an argument, when applied broadly, is a major blow to the democratic principle that an educated public can make informed choices at the ballot box regarding the positions politicians assume on domestic economics, education, international politics and war, gender, "race" and sexual orientation equality, freedom of religion, and so forth; and any scientific issue that effects the public: stem cell research, genetic engineering of plants, animals or perhaps human beings, the safety or not of new IV Gen. fast nuclear reactors, the brain development of a human fetus regarding how this impacts the ethics of abortion, whether anthropogenic climate warming has a high probability of being a significant problem in the future, and so forth.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If a layperson, meaning someone who is well educated but not at the PhD level on a given issue, cannot conduct an informed broad survey of expert opinion, to arrive at a rational objective assessment of the likelihood of there being a consensus view, then perhaps society should be managed by committees of PHd level experts, not by elected politicians, given many politicians and the public at large simply cannot comprehend highly technical problems sufficiently enough to make rational informed decisions. Perhaps this argument has some similarities to the argument of Plato in the "Republic" ( <a href="http://faculty.frostburg.edu/phil/forum/PlatoRep.htm">http://faculty.frostburg.edu/phil/forum/PlatoRep.htm</a> : "This rule by society’s best minds is the core concept of Plato’s so-called “philosopher kings.” )</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Committees composed of PHds in ethics, law, religion, economics, international politics, military strategy, education, numerous specialized scientific fields, and so forth, would make the important decisions governing society for us... Perhaps in some sense this is happening now, given the US Congress', and the US public's, manipulation by powerful economic and political interests.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Regardless of the truth of this admittedly thorny question, I assume that, given the possible planetary altering magnitude of anthropogenic climate warming, for centuries and potentially millennia, that will profoundly impact the US, it behoves every citizen, every voter, to educate themselves as much as possible regarding the climate science involved, because the problem boils down to whether the science is reliable or not. Anthropogenic climate warming is not similar to many other pollution or industrial development problems, where we can pollute or impact an ecosystem with future plans to realistically recover the ecosystem. Once powerful climate feedbacks begin to accelerate impacting global climate (albedo reduction from ice loss, ocean warming and carbon sink reversal, etc.) the problem is likely to be significantly out of humanity's control, unless by extreme and untested geo-engineering. There is no compromise or negotiation with the physics of Earth's climate system. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Regardless of how emotionally politicized this issue has become (rather irrationally political, it seems), it is fundamentally a scientific question, that should be resolved first, if possible, before assuming that strong action is indicated to address the problem, involving economics, technology, lifestyle and the political arena.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The following scientific presentation on climate feedbacks can perhaps be understood by an educated layperson:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="4">Introduction to feedbacks</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/09/introduction-to-feedbacks/#more-4993">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/09/introduction-to-feedbacks/#more-4993</a></div>
<div>------------------------------------------</div>
<div>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett</div>