Uncertainty complexity and dissent make climate change hard to tackle with normal scientific procedures. In a post-normal perspective the normal science task of "getting the facts right" is still regarded as necessary but no longer as fully feasible nor as sufficient to interface science and policy. It needs to be complemented with a task of exploring the relevance of deep uncertainty and ignorance that limit our ability to establish objective, reliable, and valid facts. This article explores the implications of this notion for the climate science policy interface. According to its political configuration the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) adopted a "speaking consensus to power" approach that sees uncertainty and dissent as a problematic lack of unequivocalness (multiple contradictory truths that need to be mediated into a consensus). This approach can be distinguished from two other interface strategies: the "speaking truth to power approach," seeing uncertainties as a temporary lack of perfection in the knowledge (truth with error bars) and the "working deliberatively within imperfections" approach, accepting uncertainty and scientific dissent as facts of life (irreducible ignorance) of which the policy relevance needs be explored explicitly. The article recommends more openness for dissent and explicit reflection on ignorance in IPCC process and reporting.
Jeroen P. van der Sluijs
Harlan Koff and Carmen Maganda
In any region of the world, in any country, each beginning of the year offers us a scenario for potential changes, purposes, goals and hopes, and 2019 does not have to be the exception. Despite various forecasts of slower global economic growth in the coming year (World Bank, Forbes, Reuters), and despite the latest reports from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on stressful atmospheric conditions, among other environmental discomforts around the planet, we cannot limit our human capacity to see the future with courage and optimism.
Speaking Scientific Truth to Power
Charles F. Kennel
This article takes up three issues associated with connecting knowledge with social action. First, we discuss some of the pitfalls of communication and perception that are always there when natural or social scientists present their versions of truth to decision-makers. Next we review how the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) deals with these pitfalls in producing its global assessments. While there is only one global assessment, there will be thousands helping local communities adapt to climate change. Each will need its own analogue of IPCC, its own 'knowledge action network'. Social Anthropology will play a key role in such networks, and so will have to devise its own ways to cope with the same issues that face climate scientists when they provide advice to action leaders. The way assessments are done at the regional and community levels, especially in the developing world, will necessarily differ from IPCC practice, but the considerations that brought the IPCC into being will still apply.
This article explores how the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has dealt with growing public scrutiny of its workings. It reviews recent initiatives set up to respond to the Climategate controversy. An independent review of the IPCC undertaken by an international scientific umbrella body—InterAcademy Council—can be shown to have triggered one of the turning points in the debate, placing the focus of attention on the IPCC's transparency and accountability. However, the council's recommendations have been implemented by the IPCC in such a way that the issue of public trust is treated as one of effective communication. The article then explains how IPCC's responses to Climategate can be traced back to the linear model of expertise. The article concludes with a discussion why the challenge of producing policy-relevant knowledge under conditions of heightened public scrutiny also requires new forms of scientific appraisal aimed at wider publics.
change, the leading cause of climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has estimated that Land Cover Change, like deforestation for agriculture, accounts for 17.4 percent of GHG emissions (2007). Deforestation for agriculture is
Appraising Existing Indicators from a Long-term Perspective
Takahiro Sato, Mario Ivan López, Taizo Wada, Shiro Sato, Makoto Nishi, and Kazuo Watanabe
Climate Change (IPCC) . 2013 . “ Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis .” https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1 (accessed 15 November 2016 ). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) . 2014 . “ Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate
Anna Scolobig, Luigi Pellizzoni, and Chiara Bianchizza
Values 11 ( 3 ): 461 – 488 , doi: 10.3197/096327102129341181 . 10.3197/096327102129341181 Harris , Marvin . 1980 . Cultural Materialism: The Struggle for a Science of Culture . New York : Random House . Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Aquatic Imagery and Ecocritical Complexity in Titus Andronicus
categorised as one of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) recommended approaches for mitigating climate change through education, knowledge-sharing and learning platforms. 8 Patricia Yaeger makes a more direct call for the involvement of
Mobilizing Children’s Voices in UK Flood Risk Management
Alison Lloyd Williams, Amanda Bingley, Marion Walker, Maggie Mort, and Virginia Howells
Flooding is recognized as the United Kingdom’s most serious “natural” hazard, 1 and according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), we can expect more severe flooding over the coming years. 2 Children are therefore highly
The Challenges of Geoengineering
Klaus Radunsky and Tim Cadman
Background: Rising Temperatures under Different Climate Change Scenarios In its special report on the 1.5 degrees centigrade target, published in 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded human activities are