Or zero millionaires?

I'm not sure if that many scientists would be either necessary or representative. In an ideal republic the will to accept the scientific consensus should be a given for all Senators and Representatives.

I will even go so far as to suggest that scientists may suffer from tunnel vision and are just as susceptible to group think as any other group. Is it possible that philosophers and/or creative thinkers might be better Representatives and Senators?

I have always been of the opinion that we need Einstein at Princeton, teaching and doing research, not managing the country.

For political leadership I would like to see sober, responsible, capable persons who have records of substantial achievement who can't be bought (Bill Clinton) or intimidated (Obama). I don't expect a politician to agree with me on every possible issue--I have been known to be wrong about some things--but I do expect him or her to be honest, responsible and capable. (Mme. Clinton fails on all three points).

I am afraid I reject the notion that philosophers, that is to say intellectuals, should rule. I have not read all of Plato, but I did study the Republic, and even as a naïve and foolish young adult, that term being used advisedly, I found Plato's conclusions rather suspect. I know there is a theme going around some obscure corners of the internet about how Plato's work is a blueprint for good governance while Aristotle is denounced as a conspiratorial agent of influence of the priests at Delphi who murdered his patron Alexander. From about 1,000 miles away, apparently, as no contemporary records place Aristotle anywhere near Babylon at the correct time.

I do agree that we need a system in which people like great scientists and artists can pursue their vocations rather than being confined to whatever "station" they may have been born to.

I couldn't see Hansen lasting long in office. The capitalists would find a way to get rid of him. His plan is to levy a nice looking tax upon the fossil fuel burners while begging the productive forces of society to do the right thing and while leaving the present-day relations of production intact. See e.g. John Bellamy Foster:

Hansen’s climate-change exit strategy thus has definite limitations. Despite its progressive features it is mostly a top-down, elite-based strategy of implementing a carbon tax with the hope that this will spur the introduction of necessary technological changes by corporations. To be sure, Hansen stresses the democratic nature of the plan, and has argued that Obama could have mobilized the population around such a tax at the height of his popularity in his first term through a series of fireside chats.33 He also suggests that the 100 percent redistribution element in the fee-and-dividend strategy must be backed up by the threat of the wider public to “fight” if this is interfered with. And he has himself joined in mass mobilizations against coal and tar sands oil. Yet, his plan includes no call for a general ecological-cultural revolution against the U.S. power structure.

If the people involved were from all walks of life but had demonstrated that they had achieved a heightened state of spiritual evolution, or demonstrated the qualities of someone who had taken the higher levels of spiritual initiation. Such as Jimmy Carter, MLK Jr., Abraham Lincoln.