Universal authority of scientific experts

Various scholars (see Harrison and Burgess; Hoveden and Lindseth[1]) hint at a claim made by some scientific experts of a ‘universal scientific truth’. If nature and environmental studies/ problems are culturally influenced and socially constructed, can there be a “universal authority of scientific experts” on the environment? Internationally agreed environmental treaties and establishment of bureaucratic organizations suggest a global drive for the universal authority of scientific experts. Opposing views are dismissed, which generate conflict between scientists that advocate the dominant discourse and the often non-attached institutionally independent scientist (example climate change discourse). But, do the conflicting scientific voices subtract from the notion of science as fact? Do the conflicting scientific voices enhance or reduce environmental risks and problems at hand? Jean-Francois Lyotard (1979)[2] foretold that the new battle of the world would be the fight for the control of information as ‘knowledge in the form of an information commodity’ is linked to productive power. The question becomes if modern environmentalists are selling their knowledge to advance nature’s cause or enhance economic power?