Q: It appears that this entire debate about global warming is self-regulated by the "top minds" also being in control of policy change. For example here in New Zealand the government is effectively regulated by a group of so-called top scientists who judge when and what changes are required to combat this "global warming crisis". Obesity is another prime example of the technocrats controlling what kids can and can't eat and what rules schools must enforce to combat the obesity "epidemic". turning into* Fair points Phil, in some policies I agree science should be used but when the science is disputed how can it be legitimately used to justify current policy? All it appears to do is self-validate and self-regulate the policy insofar as the science must be right because the policy was enacted and similarly the policy must be justifiable because it is backed by "science" I agree slaps, governments are here to provide security for their populations as well as economic well-being. Beyond that we turn into a "nanny state" That's all well and good phil except if this is really a man-made problem then it encompasses all nations doesn't it. What about Africa? They don't have the money to fund projects for alternative fuel sources and fossil fuels remains the most cost-efficient source of energy for them at the moment. Should we imperialise them too? There are alot of problems to solve before we can even begin actually "doing something". At the moment policy is largely focussing on individuals who actually need large vehicles as part of everyday life. But every little bit...
A: One role of scientists is to educate policy makers so they can make informed decisions. In other words, science should be used in policy decisions. That's how societies advances -- technological and scientific breakthroughs. I would argue that some politicians are using science to advance effect polices and others are not. But I would not say we are in a technocracy. ------- The science is pretty strong that humans are, at least, partially responsible for current climate changes: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/publications/meehl_additivity.pdf http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/h844264320314105/fulltext.pdf http://www.dvgu.ru/meteo/library/30760001.pdf http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/317/5839/796 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/290/5499/2133 And we have already attributed many changes to climate change: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Rosenzweig_etal_1.pdf http://magmo.typepad.com/VitousekHumanDomination.pdf http://www.fishclimate.ca/pdf/Extinction_risk_from_climate_change_Nature_2004.pdf http://people.ucsc.edu/~zavaleta/biodiversity.pdf http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7907685 But there is still plenty of work to be done: http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/StottEtAl.pdf http://www.impact-malaria.com/FR/EPS/Formations_et_cours_internationaux/Formation_de_la_Liverpool_School_LSTMH/cours_liverpool/PDFs/Mouchet.pdf You don't see the scientists that publish these articles advancing policy -- you see politicians advancing policy. We need to make sure that we use scientific knowledge to make informed policy decisions that won't collapse our economy (I think this can be done). Doing nothing will not help anything (see changes to biological and agricultural systems in link above, plus increased energy costs, pollution, health risks, etc.). Our science is improving and continued research is essential so we can make the very best decisions.