Book contents
- Environmental Expertise
- Reviews
- Environmental Expertise
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- 2 What Is Science? (And Why Does This Matter?)
- 3 Frames: Beyond Facts Versus Values
- Case A Framing Climate Change
- 4 Science, Politics, and the Public in Knowledge Controversies
- Case B What Does ‘Climategate’ Tell Us About Public Knowledge Controversies
- Case C Whose Deficit Anyway? Institutional Misunderstanding of Fracking-Sceptical Publics
- 5 The Limits to Knowledge
- Case D Angry Bulbs
- 6 Usable Knowledge
- Case E Expertise for European Fisheries Policy
- 7 Interdisciplinarity and the Challenge of Knowledge Integration
- Case F Knowledge Integration in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
- Case G Integrated Assessment for Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution
- 8 Lay Expertise
- Case H Lay Expertise and Botanical Science
- Case I The Loweswater Care Project
- 9 Environmental Experts at the Science–Policy–Society Interface
- Case J Groupthink and Whistle Blowers in CO2 Capture and Storage
- 10 Environmental Knowledge in Democracy
- 11 Conclusion
- Index
- References
Case B - What Does ‘Climategate’ Tell Us About Public Knowledge Controversies
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 February 2019
Book contents
- Environmental Expertise
- Reviews
- Environmental Expertise
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- 2 What Is Science? (And Why Does This Matter?)
- 3 Frames: Beyond Facts Versus Values
- Case A Framing Climate Change
- 4 Science, Politics, and the Public in Knowledge Controversies
- Case B What Does ‘Climategate’ Tell Us About Public Knowledge Controversies
- Case C Whose Deficit Anyway? Institutional Misunderstanding of Fracking-Sceptical Publics
- 5 The Limits to Knowledge
- Case D Angry Bulbs
- 6 Usable Knowledge
- Case E Expertise for European Fisheries Policy
- 7 Interdisciplinarity and the Challenge of Knowledge Integration
- Case F Knowledge Integration in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
- Case G Integrated Assessment for Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution
- 8 Lay Expertise
- Case H Lay Expertise and Botanical Science
- Case I The Loweswater Care Project
- 9 Environmental Experts at the Science–Policy–Society Interface
- Case J Groupthink and Whistle Blowers in CO2 Capture and Storage
- 10 Environmental Knowledge in Democracy
- 11 Conclusion
- Index
- References
Summary
Climate change is one of the more public current knowledge controversies in the environmental domain. Part of the controversy revolves around the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC), which has as its mandate to assess the current state of knowledge about the state and causes of climate change. This case documents a particular episode in the history of the IPCC where it faced considerable scrutiny about its ways of working. The case illustrates the role of the linear model in these controversies and the role of politics.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Environmental ExpertiseConnecting Science, Policy and Society, pp. 82 - 89Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Agrawala, S. (1998). Context and Early Origins of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climatic Change, 39(4), 605–620.Google Scholar
A/RES/43/53. (1988). Protection of Global Climate for Present and Future Generations of Mankind. www.un.org/documents/ga/res/43/a43r053.htmGoogle Scholar
Bagla, P. (2010). Climate Science Leader Rajendra Pachauri Confronts the Critics. Science, 327(5965), 510–511.Google Scholar
Beck, S. (2012a). Between Tribalism and Trust: The IPCC under the Public Microscope. Nature and Culture, 7(2), 151–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, S. (2012b). The Challenges of Building Cosmopolitan Climate Expertise: The Case of Germany. WIRES Climate Change, 3(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
Beck, S., Forsyth, T., Kohler, P. M., Lahsen, M., and Mahony, M. (2016). The Making of Global Environmental Science and Politics. In Felt, U., Fouché, R., Miller, C. A., and Smith-Doerr, L., eds., The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (pp. 1059–1086). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Edwards, P. N., and Schneider, S. H. (2001). Self-governance and Peer Review in Science for Policy: The Case of the IPCC Second Assessment Report. In Miller, C. and Edwards, P. N., eds., Changing the Atmosphere: Expert Knowledge and Environmental Governance (pp. 219–246). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Elzinga, A. (1996). Shaping Worldwide Consensus – The Orchestration of Global Climate Change Research. In Elzinga, A. and Landström, C., eds., Internationalism and Science (pp. 223–253). London: Taylor Graham.Google Scholar
Hajer, M. (2012). Living the Winter of Discontent: Reflections of a Deliberative Practitioner. In Heinlein, M., Kropp, C., Neumer, J., Poferl, A. and Römhild, R., eds., Futures of Modernity: Challenges for Cosmopolitical Thought and Practice (pp. 77–94). Bielefeld: Transcript.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilgartner, S. (2000). Science on Stage: Expert Advice as Public Drama. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Hulme, M. (2013). Exploring Climate Change through Science and in Society: An Anthology of Mike Hulme’s Essays, Interviews and Speeches. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
IAC, (2010). Climate Change Assessments: Review of the Processes and Procedures of the IPCC. Amsterdam. http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (2010). Testing Time for Climate Science. Science, 328(5979), 695–696.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jasanoff, S. (2011), Cosmopolitan Knowledge: Climate Science and Global Civic Epistemology. In Dryzek, J., Norgaard, R.B., and Schlosberg, D., eds., Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society (pp. 129–143). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (2012). Reflexive Modernity Brings Us Back to Earth. In Heinlein, M., Kropp, C., Neumer, J., Poferl, A. and Römhild, R., eds., Futures of Modernity: Challenges for Cosmopolitical Thought and Practice (pp. 65–75). Bielefeld: Transcript.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewandowsky, S., Oreskes, N., Risbey, J., Newell, B., and Smithson, M. (2015). Seepage: Climate Change Denial and its Effect on the Scientific Community. Global Environmental Change, 33, 1–13.Google Scholar
Mahony, M. (2014). The Predictive State: Science, Territory and the Future of the Indian Climate. Social Studies of Science, 44(1), 109–133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oreskes, N., and Conway, E. (2010). Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. New York: Bloomsbury Press.Google Scholar
Parry, M., Canziani, O., Palutikof, J., Van der Linden, P., and Hanson, C., eds. (2007). Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
PBL (2010). Assessing an IPCC Assessment: An Analysis of Statements on Projected Regional Impacts in the 2007 Report. Bilthoven: PBL (Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency).Google Scholar
Pearce, F. (2010). The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth about Global Warming. London: Guardian Books.Google Scholar
Petersen, A.C. (2011). Climate Simulation, Uncertainty, and Policy Advice: The Case of the IPCC. In Gramelsberger, G. and Feichter, J., eds., Climate Change and Policy: The Calculability of Climate Change and the Challenge of Uncertainty. Dordrecht: Springer, 91–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pielke, R. (2007). The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiermeier, Q. (2010). Few Fishy Facts Found in Climate Report. Nature, 466(7303), 170.Google Scholar
Schneider, S. H. (2009). Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save Earth’s Climate. Washington: National Geographic.Google Scholar
Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., et al, eds., (2007). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Whatmore, S. J. (2009). Mapping Knowledge Controversies: Science, Democracy and the Redistribution of Expertise. Progress in Human Geography, 33(5), 587–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar