quote:
To your first point, no, I would not submit my vote to "any which person"! Would you?
I thought that my previous posts made this self evident, but for the record. No!
quote:
My point is that we do not need to understand all the science as fully as all the experts put together in order to make up our minds about this.
I concur, but when we see controversy to our pertinent and personal understanding, should we not post on this? You never know, we may even be able to learn by this process (myself included). Surely a relative understanding of the science offered is a prerequisite to a decision of who should be given any proxy of your vote.
quote:
That is why the IPCC was formed.
No! That is why the IPCC was formed by a political body. The WMO (an arm of the UN) evoked the existence of the IPCC at the request of the UN to quantify the level of anthropogenic "forcings" to our climate. Thus, the IPCC was set up by a policy issue of the UN to the WMO and is a political body that reports back to the WMO and the UN (bodies that only consider policy)! Why should they have any interest in science other than population and voting potential, besides the usual humanitarian effort?
It's after 2 am and I can't respond to the remainder of your post here (I'm too knackered). Speak to you later.
Best regards, suricat.