Learning from the Experiences of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Balancing Science and Policy to Enable Trustworthy Knowledge
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. The IPCC and Climategate
3. Theoretical Perspective
4. Revisiting Climategate
4.1. Balancing Science and Policy
4.2. Friction between Perspectives on the Science–Policy Relation
By addressing the symptoms (lack of information and communication) rather than the underlying causes (lack of public accountability and transparency), the IPCC leadership is failing to adequately address the problem of restoring expert credibility. /---/ As the IAC [InterAcademy Council] and PBL reviews show, public transparency and accountability do not necessarily undermine but, on the contrary, help to create public trust in climate experts.
5. Conclusions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Sundqvist, G.; Gasper, D.; St. Clair, A.L.; Hermansen, E.A.T.; Yearly, S.; Øvstebø, I.; Wynne, B. One world or two? Science-policy interactions in the climate filed. Crit. Policy Stud. 2018, 12, 448–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weingart, P. Scientific expertise and political accountability: Paradoxes of science in politics. Sci. Public Policy 1999, 26, 151–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cash, D.; Clark, W.C.; Alcock, F.; Dickson, N.M.; Eckley, N.; Guston, D.H.; Jäger, J.; Mitchell, R.B. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2003, 100, 8086–8091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heink, U.; Marquard, E.; Heubach, K.; Jax, K.; Hugel, C.; Neßhöver, C.; Neumann, R.K.; Paulsch, A.; Tilch, S.; Timaeus, J.; et al. Conceptualizing credibility, relevance and legitimacy for evaluating the effectiveness of science-policy interfaces: Challenges and opportunities. Sci. Public Policy 2015, 42, 676–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beck, S. Moving beyond the linear model of expertise? IPCC and the test of adaption. Regul. Environ. Chang. 2011, 11, 297–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clark, W.C.; Mitchell, R.; Cash, D.; Alcock, F. Information as Influence: How Institutions Mediate the Impact of Scientific Assessments on Global Environmental Affairs; KSG Working Papers Series RWP02-044; Research Administration Office: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Koetz, T.; Farrell, K.N.; Bridgewater, P. Building better science-policy interfaces for international environmental governance: Assessing potential within the Intergovernmental platform for biodiversity and ecosystem services. Int. Environ. Agreem. 2012, 12, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parker, J.; Crona, B. On being all things to all people: Boundary organizations and the contemporary research university. Soc. Stud. Sci. 2012, 42, 262–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jasanoff, S. Designs of Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Lidskog, R.; Sundqvist, G. When Does Science Matter? International Relations Meets Science and Technology Studies. Glob. Environ. Politics 2015, 15, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pielke, R. The Honest Broker. Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Haas, P.M.; Stevens, C. Organized Science, Usable Knowledge and Multilateral Environmental Governance. In Governing the Air; Lidskog, R., Sundqvist, G., Eds.; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2011; pp. 125–161. [Google Scholar]
- Berg, M.; Lidskog, R. Deliberative democracy meets democratised science: A deliberative systems approach to global environmental governance. Environ. Politics 2018, 27, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grundmann, R. ’Climategate’ and The Scientific Ethos. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 2011, 38, 67–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skrydstrup, M. Tricked or troubled natures? How to make sense of ‘climategate’. Environ. Sci. Policy 2013, 28, 92–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schiermeier, Q. Few Fishy Facts Found in Climate Report. Nature 2010, 466, 170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Beck, S. Between Tribalism and Trust: The IPCC Under the ‘Public Microscope’. Nat. Cult. 2012, 7, 151–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cogley, G.J.; Kargel, J.A.; Kaser, G.; van der Veen, C.J. Tracking the source of glacier misinformation. Science 2010, 327, 522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. Assessing an IPCC Assessment. An Analysis of Statements on Projected Regional Impacts in the 2007 Report; Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Pearce, F. The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth about Global Warming; Guardian Books: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Schiermeier, Q. Glacier estimate is on thin ice. Nature 2010, 463, 276–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lahsen, M. Climategate: The role of the social sciences. Clim. Chang. 2013, 119, 547–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beck, S. Case B What Does ’Climategate’ Tell Us about Public Knowledge Controversies. In Environmental Expertise. Connecting Science, Policy, and Society; Turnhout, E., Tuinstrqa, W., Halffman, W., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Agrawala, S. Context and early origins of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Clim. Chang. 1998, 39, 605–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- About the IPCC. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/about/ (accessed on 20 August 2019).
- Gustafsson, K.M.; Lidskog, R. Boundary organizations and environmental governance: Performance, institutional design, and conceptual development. Clim. Risk Manag. 2018, 19, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hume, M.; Mahony, M. Climate change: What do we know about the IPCC? Prog. Phys. Geogr. 2010, 34, 705–718. [Google Scholar]
- Siebenhüner, B. The changing role of nation states in international environmental assessments—The case of the IPCC. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2003, 13, 113–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hughes, H.R.; Paterson, M. Narrowing the Climate Field: The Symbolic Power of Authors in the IPCC’s Assessment of Mitigation. Rev. Policy Res. 2017, 34, 744–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jasanoff, S.; Wynne, B. Science and Decisionmaking. In Human Choices & Climate Change. The Societal Framework; Rayner, S., Malone, E.L., Eds.; Battelle Press: Columbus, OH, USA, 1998; Volume 1, pp. 1–87. [Google Scholar]
- Miller, C.A. Climate Sciences and the Making of Global Political Order. In States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order; Jasanoff, S., Ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2004; pp. 46–66. [Google Scholar]
- Berg, M.; Lidskog, R. Pathways to deliberative capacity: The role of the IPCC. Clim. Chang. 2018, 148, 11–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pasgaard, M.; Dalsgaard, B.; Maruyama, P.K.; Sandel, B.; Strange, N. Geographical imbalances and divides in the scientific production of climate change knowledge. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2015, 35, 279–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corbera, E.; Calvet-Mir, L.; Hughes, H.; Paterson, M. Patterns of authorship in the IPCC Working Group III report. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2015, 6, 94–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ford, J.D.; Cameron, L.; Rubis, J.; Maillet, M.; Nakashima, D.; Willox, A.C.; Pearce, T. Including indigenous knowledge and experience in IPCC assessment reports. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2012, 6, 349–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ford, J.D.; Vanderbilt, W.; Berrang-Ford, L. Authorship in IPCC AR5 and its implications for content: Climate change and Indigenous populations in WGII. Clim. Chang. 2012, 113, 201–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Obermeister, N. From dichotomy to duality: Addressing interdisciplinary epistemological barriers to inclusive knowledge governance in global environmental assessments. Environ. Sci. Policy 2017, 68, 80–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cash, D.; Clark, W.C.; Alcock, F.; Dickson, N.M.; Eckley, N.; Jäger, J. Salience, Credibility, Legitimacy and Boundaries: Linking Research, Assessment and Decision Making; KSG Working Papers Series RWP02-046; Research Administration Office: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Haas, P.M. When does power listen to truth? A constructivist approach to the policy process. J. Eur. Public Policy 2004, 11, 569–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Humphreys, D. Working across boundaries: Science-policy interfaces and international forest politics. J. Integr. Environ. Sci. 2009, 6, 163–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoppe, R.; Wesselink, A. Comparing the role of boundary organizations in the governance of climate change in the EU member states. Environ. Sci. Policy 2014, 44, 73–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ourbak, T.; Laurence, T. Changing the game: The Paris Agreement and the role of scientific communities. Clim. Policy 2017, 17, 819–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- The Nobel Peace Prize 2007. Available online: https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/ (accessed on 8 March 2018).
- Jahansoozi, J. Organization-stakeholder relationships: Exploring trust and transparency. J. Manag. Dev. 2006, 25, 942–955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lacey, J.; Howden, M.; Cvitanovic, C.; Colvin, R.M. Understanding and managing trust at the climate science-policy interface. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2018, 8, 22–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goodwin, J.; Dahlstrom, M.F. Communication strategies for earning trust in climate change debates. WIREs Clim. Chang. 2014, 5, 151–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lucas, C.; Leith, P.; Davison, A. How climate change research undermines trust in everyday life: A review. WIREs Clim. Chang. 2015, 6, 79–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Curry, J. Opinion: Can scientists rebuild the public trust in climate science? Physics Today, 24 February 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Leiserowitz, A.A.; Maibach, E.W.; Roser-Renouf, C.; Smith, N.; Dawson, E. Climategate, Public Opinion, and the Loss of Trust. Am. Behav. Sci. 2012, 57, 818–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Guston, D.H. Stabilizing the boundary between US politics and science: The role of the office of technology transfer as a boundary organization. Soc. Stud. Sci. 1999, 29, 87–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guston, D.H. Between Politics and Science. Assuring the Integrity and Productivity of Research; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Guston, D.H. Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: An introduction. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 2001, 26, 399–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Miller, C.A. Hybrid management: Boundary organizations, science policy, and environmental governance in the climate regime. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 2001, 26, 478–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mørk, B.E.; Hoholm, T.; Maaninen-Olsson, E.; Aanestad, M. Changing practice through boundary organizing: A case from medical R&D. Hum. Relat. 2012, 65, 263–288. [Google Scholar]
- Gustafsson, K.M.; Wolf, S.A.; Agrawal., A.A. Science-Policy-Practice Interfaces: Emergent knowledge and monarch butterfly conservation. Environ. Policy Gov. 2017, 27, 521–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jasanoff, S. The Idiom of Co-Production. In States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order; Jasanoff., S., Ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2004; pp. 1–12. [Google Scholar]
- Nowotny, H.; Scott, P.; Gibbons, M. Re-Thinking Science. Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty; Polity Press: Cambridge, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Wynne, B. Risk as Globalizing ’Democratic’ Discourse? Framing Subjects and Citizens. In Science and Citizens: Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement; Leach, M., Scoones, I., Wynne, B., Eds.; Zed Books: London, UK, 2005; pp. 66–82. [Google Scholar]
- Hilgartner, S. Science on Stage. Expert Advice as Public Drama; Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Latour, B. From the World of Science to the World of Research? Science 1998, 280, 208–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- White, D.D.; Corley, E.A.; White, M.S. Water managers’ perceptions of the science-policy interface in Phoenix Arizona: Implications for an emerging boundary organization. Soc. Nat. Res. 2008, 21, 230–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- White, D.D.; Wutich, A.; Larson, K.L.; Gober, P.; Lant, T.; Senneville, C. Credibility, salience, and legitimacy of boundary objects: Water mangers’ assessment of a simulation model in an immersive decision theater. Sci. Publ. Policy 2011, 37, 219–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keating, T.J. Lessons from the recent history of the health effects institute. Sci. Technol. Hum. Value 2001, 26, 409–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boezeman, D.; Vink, M.; Leroy, P. The Dutch delta committee as a boundary organization. Environ. Sci. Policy 2013, 27, 162–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, P.o.t. UK. The Disclosure of Climate Data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia; House of Commons Science and Technology Committee: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Oxburgh, R.; Davies, H.; Emanuel, K.; Graumlich, L.; Hand, D.; Huppert, H.; Kelly, M. Report of the International Panel Set up by the University of East Anglia to Examine the Research of the Climatic Research Unit; University of East Anglia: Norwich, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Myths vs. Facts: Denial of Petitions for Reconsideration of the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/myths-vs-facts-denial-petitions-reconsideration-endangerment-and-cause-or-contribute (assessed on 5 February 2018).
- InterAcademy Council. Climate Change Assessments: Review of the Processes and Procedures of the IPCC; InterAcademy Council: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Report of the 32nd Session of the IPCC; The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Busan, Korea, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Hajer, M.A. A media storm in the world risk society: Enacting scientific authority in the IPCC controversy (2009–2010). Crit. Policy Stud. 2012, 6, 452–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ritzer, D. IPCC’s problem at the top. Climate Etc. 11 July 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Collins, H.M.; Evans, R. Rethinking Expertise; The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Lahsen, M. Climategate and the virtue of the scientific community: An editorial commentary on the Maibach etal. and Grundmann opinion articles. WIREs Clim. Chang. 2012, 3, 279–280. [Google Scholar]
- Clark, W.C.; Mitchell, R.B.; Cash, D.W. Evaluating the Influence of Global Environmetnal Assessments. In Global Environmental Assessments; Mitchell, E.B., Clark, W.C., Cash, D.W., Dickson, N.M., Eds.; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2006; pp. 1–28. [Google Scholar]
- The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Report of the 40th Session of the IPCC; The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Preparing Reports. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/about/preparingreports/ (accessed on 11 October 2019).
- Engage with the IPCC. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/about/engage_with_the_ipcc/ (accessed on 11 October 2019).
- Latour, B. Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
© 2019 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Gustafsson, K.M. Learning from the Experiences of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Balancing Science and Policy to Enable Trustworthy Knowledge. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6533. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236533
Gustafsson KM. Learning from the Experiences of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Balancing Science and Policy to Enable Trustworthy Knowledge. Sustainability. 2019; 11(23):6533. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236533
Chicago/Turabian StyleGustafsson, Karin M. 2019. "Learning from the Experiences of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Balancing Science and Policy to Enable Trustworthy Knowledge" Sustainability 11, no. 23: 6533. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236533