In Ecological Economics, this is called the "precautionary principle." Uncertainty does not always imply "full steam ahead." Steve Marglin had a piece a few years ago where said Keynes introduced the idea of uncertainty in investment and the notion of animal spirits implied that we needed people who would take risks in the face of uncertainty because if we only relied on "cold calculation" there probably wouldn't be much investment, and therefore jobs. Marglin then argues that the same logic does not aply in the case of environmental risks--instead, better to err on the side of caution. The best work on uncertainty in environmental policy is the "post-normal" approach of Ravetz and Funtowicz.
> The global warming issue highlights a key problem I have with the
scientific method. If we wait for evidence(the anti-global warming crowd
never tells us what that evidence would be )then we may wind up as plant
food(assuming the plants survive the increases in temperature). We should
assume that global warming is occuring. It is better to be safe than sorry.
**********
You mean infer it is occurring based on the best evidence we have so far, heh? The opponents of the hypotheses are merely showing the ugliest side "raise the evidence bar so high they'll never get over it". It's an ancient game. Too bad transboundary pollution isn't considered a non-tariff trade barrier or a form of eco-dumping.
Ian