[danielharan]

Oh, so one minute you say all those climate modellers should shut up and do more science, the other, they should spend a few years learning to be automative engineers?

We don't debate gravity through the political process. We can discuss how to tackle climate change, but that itself is not debatable.

And if they defend it, it's because it's under attack. The industry FUD would have many believe that it's the scientists that have a vested interest.

[nsxwolf]

No. My point is only that scientists are not a 4th branch of government.

We don't debate global warming through the political process, nor should we. We debate what we might want to do about global warming through the political process. Your comment indicates you don't see the difference, and that's exactly what I'm worried about.

You're not granted political power simply for being right. Imagine if a new consensus was reached amongst economists that the minimum wage is bad for the economy, and were granted the power to eliminate it. I don't think too many here would be happy about that.

[danielharan]

Oh, I understand it all too well.

In my experience, all the critics of the science want NO action taken, except more science and R&D. Or even in Canada, the shuttering of scientific projects that could be inconvenient.

[kaybe]

Sure, and I'm not trying to control what is being done. If everyone decides that they are fine with a world a few degrees warmer, ok. Nothing I can do. I just want to push for something, for politics to act on the knowledge gained.

A scientist is also a citizen - I don't see where you give away whatever marginal power you have as a member of the public. Everyone can push for the things they value, it's a democracy.