I understand your point, but don't necessarily agree with it. If you are using an "effect" with a somewhat arcane scientific sounding name to argue that one has to be a "specialist" to understand the global warming debate, you are engaging in intellectual snobbery. What is your definition of "specialist', anyway? Are you the final arbiter of who is qualified to refer to themselves thusly, and who is not? What are YOUR qualifications for so doing?
Is it possible that there are those who may have not even graduated from a university, or perhaps even high school, who could know as much about the underlying issues in the global warming debate as someone who is "well known" in academic circles? Please. Spare me the arrogance.
I live in Connecticut, and whenever I drive through Yale's campus in New Haven, I'm amazed at how many Yale students are not even capable of crossing a busy street safely. Yet, the fact that they can call themselves "Yale graduates" after a few years almost immediately guarantees them a high paying, perhaps high status job whether they're qualified or not. Just look at our last President who "graduated" from Yale. Need I say more?
BTW, sometimes "specialists" are not necessarily the most qualified individuals to assess the underlying issues in a debate such as that involving global warming. There are so many other factors which play a part in the global warming debate, such as economics, human psychology, cultural anthropology and a plethora of others I could think of if I have more time.
If our environment can loosely be considered part of "nature", then I think it bears remembering that the Native Americans, who understood a lot more about nature from first hand experience than do most modern Americans, even scientists perhaps, would be the first to remind us that nature is "interconnected".
Specialists are not always as adept at understanding issues outside of their specialties as others, who might even be termed "laymen", (or perhaps I should say lay"people" to be more PC.) Indeed, logic would suggest that the more specialized one's knowledge is, the more susceptible is one to "missing the forest for the trees".
Finally, I find it hard to believe that a "Renaissance Man" (and therefore by definition a "non-specialist") such as Leonardo da Vinci, would have had an inability to understand at least as much about the global warming controversy as the "specialists" in whose competence you seem to have such unwavering faith.