The most important environmental problems are also the most complex ones, and the available science is, more than often not conclusive. What then triggers off, the appropriate action? Are we facing dilemma’s?
Krugman commented on the state of affairs among climate scientists in the US as follows:
“Climate scientists have, en masse become like the Greek Goddess Cassandra- gifted with the ability to prohesy future disasters, but cursed with the inability to get anyone to believe them”.
Epistemic debate in science constitutes multiple plausbile, yet on the long term incompatible prospective plausibility claims, thereby articulating our uncertain knowledge base: The relation to action is ofcourse dependent on your normative(ethical) guidance in this matter. The issue returns at the level for a need of global governance; some governments are convinced by a particular type of science, others are not.
And, what to do if one of the science-base plausible claims articulates the ugent need of action and while others play-down the issue?
We are in the course of doing some research work clarifying the relation between knowledge and action. What type of debates in science need what tye of follow up in policy?
Foresight Knowledge Assessment
On identifying plausibility claims