It is perfectly legitimate to argue that that global warming has achieved such prominence not
because of scientific certainty, but because of activism, and because of political environmentalism.
Not exact matches
According to reporting in
Scientific American's sister publication Nature, minutes
of the meeting show that the researchers were in fact much more circumspect, saying things such as «a major earthquake in the area is unlikely but can not be ruled out» and «
because L'Aquila is in a high - risk zone it is impossible to say with
certainty that there will be no large earthquake.»
For example, the NCFS found language such as «reasonable
scientific certainty» to be meaningless and recommended that it not be used in court
because it gives the false impression
of scientific rigor.
If we don't recognize that our belief in
scientific progress is a kind
of faith, that is
because these patterns take on a sense
of certainty in hindsight.
I suppose, on reading it again, that you could construe what I said to mean that we should not act if we have full
scientific certainty... but that's obviously not what I meant,
because if we have full
scientific certainty (as I pointed out in my examples
of seat belts and condoms) we don't need the precautionary principle at all.
Once it has been established as a «fact», it doesn't matter what science says,
because the doubt incubates the imagination better than
certainty, and prohibits
scientific expertise from undermining the power
of the nightmare.
This interpretative function is important
because, as researchers from the fields
of science communication and science studies have shown, traditional notions
of scientific authority,
of the presentation
of scientific certainty, and
of science being the supreme method
of understanding the world have been increasingly questioned.
The former can be said with a great deal
of certainty because it relies on and a reality
of scientific measurement and the statistical analysis
of error bounds.
Yet she has to maintain her version
of scientific certainty because if the public realises that there is a debate about how to respond to climate change, and a debate about how reliable forecasts are, her political manifesto simply has no currency.
The fact is that the HS didn't do much for environmentalism anyway — environmental politics remained the sport
of the establishment,
because it failed to find popular support; and
scientific certainty was not needed for the creation
of political institutions prior to the HS.
Republicans should «continue to make the lack
of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate»
because otherwise, he warned, «[s] hould the public come to believe that the
scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.»
This is
because the law requires proof
of causation only on a balance
of probabilities, whereas
scientific or medical experts often require a higher degree
of certainty before drawing conclusions on causation (p. 330).