nach oben

Erschienen in:

2016 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

3. Fundamental Perils for Scientific Assessments

verfasst von : Martin Kowarsch

Erschienen in: A Pragmatist Orientation for the Social Sciences in Climate Policy

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

There are some fundamental perils for the role of the sciences in policy, which also affect economic assessments. Based on a discussion of these perils, this chapter identifies the key challenge of bridging scientific expertise and public policy. Section 3.1 provides the background for this by describing that in practice, neither scientific knowledge production nor political decision-making follow simple rationalistic and functionalist ideals. Rather, multiple (often conflicting) motives are involved in, for instance, scientific assessment-making. Yet, scientific assessments can have some desirable influence on policy-making processes if certain requirements are met. Section 3.2 introduces the fundamental problems and perils of scientific policy advice. One of the most challenging issues is the treatment of value judgements, particularly in policy assessments; this issue endangers sound science, policy-relevance and political legitimacy. Section 3.3 provides some examples in terms of existing criticism of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and, finally, Sect. 3.4 identifies the trade-offs between the general norms for scientific expertise in public policy as being the key challenge of scientific expertise in policy. The framework for the IPCC envisaged in this book has to successfully respond to this key challenge.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel The Need for an Integrated Economic Assessment of Climate Policy Options

Nächstes Kapitel Prevalent Action-Guiding Models of Scientific Expertise in Policy

In contrast to “politics,” which is about processes and power struggles, public “policy” refers to contents, i.e., to institutionalised political fields that represent larger, long-term political problems and related (governmental or parliamentary) decisions, negotiations, regulatory measures and actions – for instance climate policy. “Policy systems” consist of: (1) public policies (i.e., the sum of policy decisions), (2) policy agents and stakeholders, (3) the policy environment, i.e., the specific context in which events occur (Dunn 1994, pp. 70f).

There are similar or partly identical research activities called “Science, Technology, and Society,” “(New) Sociology of Science” or “of Scientific Knowledge,” or “Social Studies of Science” (see Bammé 2009). Further literature providing an overview of this field of study includes Sismondo (2010) and Joerges and Nowotny (2003). There are many programmes at different universities all over the globe on Science and Technology Studies, mostly in the tradition of social constructivism. There is a great variety of approaches in this interdisciplinary research field.

This and the following statements on the Actor-Network Theory are mainly based on Sismondo (2010, Chap. 8).

Accepting some core insights of the Actor-Network Theory here does neither imply that one has to follow social constructivism in its more radical sense of epistemological pessimism (see also Chaps. 5 and 6), nor that the Actor-Network Theory could not be substantially improved.

This description of the policy process ought to be interpreted as a mere heuristic model: It does not explain why these steps happen (or sometimes do not happen), or why a particular policy is promoted. For the critique on such a policy model, e.g. on the presupposition that there is a certain “point” in time of decision-making, see Kuruvilla and Dorstewitz (2010) as well as Blum and Schubert (2009, Chap. 5).

Sabatier (2007) and Blum and Schubert (2009, Chaps. 2 and 3) provide excellent overviews of policy change theories. Factors explaining changes in international agreements in particular, e.g., those under the UNFCCC, are discussed within the research field of international relations with the help of regime theory (developed in the 1980s).

Negotiation skills, existing networks and the particular context, as well as all instruments of the exertion of power are certainly factors in addition to the respective action-guiding rationality. Neorealist approaches seem to take this into account by pointing out the importance of power resources and capabilities (Haas 1992, p. 6).

See also Grundmann and Stehr (2011, p. 25). This seems in line with Max Weber’s observation that politics is about “strong and slow boring of hard boards.” Brown (2009, p. 13), making use of Bismarck’s famous dictum, even suggests that policy-making processes are very far from being “rational” processes: “laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.”

As argued by Blum and Schubert (2009, p. 149).

Beck (2009, pp. 201–227) offers a more comprehensive overview of current debates on the sociological aspects of scientific policy advice. The two most important disciplines reflecting on the science-policy interface in general include Science and Technology Studies as well as Public Policy Analysis. Public Policy Analysis strongly builds on assumptions about factors for policy change and is about “creating, critically assessing, and communicating policy-relevant knowledge” (Dunn 1994, p. 2). Similar (or even identical) research fields are “Policy Studies,” “Policy Sciences” and “Comparative Public Policy” (Blum and Schubert 2009, p. 8).

In this book, this term is used in a very broad sense, and also includes IPCC assessments. There are three fundamentally different kinds of strategic (content-related) policy advice: (1) policy advice by individuals, (2) institutionalised policy advice and (3) the general “dialogue” between academia and society (Grunwald 2008, p. 23). I will focus on the second kind, i.e., formalised science-policy institutions such as the IPCC.

See also the concept of “trans-science” (Weinberg 1972); Funtowicz and Ravetz (1991); Maasen and Weingart (2005); and Beck (2009, Chap. 2).

For the main differences between standard research and scientific policy advice, see the useful table in Jasanoff (1990, p. 80); Skodvin (1999); as well as the table in Kowarsch (2014) with its particular focus on differences between scientific assessments and standard scientific research.

In general, the communication between experts and policymakers, as diverse societal groups, is difficult (Grundmann and Stehr 2011, pp. 25ff; Habermas 1968). Policymakers usually cannot spend as much time on the details and uncertainties of a policy problem as academics; often only clear-cut and concise scientific statements attract the attention of policymakers.

See Gormley (2007); Grundmann and Stehr (2011, pp. 27f and 42f); Mitchell et al. (2006).

As stated by a large number of observers; among them are Gormley (2007), Beck (2009), Skodvin (1999), Jasanoff (1990), Elzinga (1996), Haas (1992).

My references to the “science-policy” interface or “scientific policy advice” in this book do not solely refer to the provision of expertise to policymakers in a narrow sense (i.e., governmental representatives or “the state”); they also refer to policy-making as a complex process involving numerous and different agents as the target audience of IPCC assessments – in short: “policymakers and the public.”

Moreover, in different political systems (compare e.g. the US, United Kingdom and Germany), the role of governmental policymakers (or Members of Congress or Parliament) and that of their personal advisers is very different. In some countries, scientific advice should ideally be provided directly to politicians, in other countries indirectly to their personal advisers.

Yet, there are considerable differences between different cases of institutionalised scientific policy advice, in terms of institutions, topics, targets, products, agents, background conflicts, and so on (see the examples in Jasanoff 1990 and Pielke 2007). All of these cases may require different and specific guidelines due to their various structures and problems. Among other things, that is why this book focuses on the specific case of international climate policy and the integrated economic assessments by the IPCC. Section 12.4.2 will discuss whether the results of this book can also be applied to institutions other than the IPCC.

See also http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml, accessed 30 Mar 2015.

The Copenhagen Accord reads: “We call for an assessment of the implementation of this Accord to be completed by 2015, including in light of the Conventions ultimate objective. This would include consideration of strengthening the long-term goal referencing various matters presented by the science, including in relation to temperature rises of 1.5 degrees Celsius” (UNFCCC 2009). This could be interpreted as follows: Policymakers waited for the next, the Fifth AR to know more about the costs and impacts of different mitigation targets.

See http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/, accessed 14 Aug 2014.

For now, it is not decisive whether these are actual or potential problems and perils of scientific policy advice. There are, however, enough examples in the literature which I will not discuss in this section. A potential problem or peril is already reason enough to carefully reflect and critically evaluate the IPCC’s work.

Samuelson and Nordhaus (2010, p. 508) point to the implied danger by quoting Solow: “Nobody likes to say ‘I don’t know’.”

See, e.g., Carraro et al. (2015). Related to this point is the “sound science vs. junk science” dispute particularly in the 1990s, as explained by Douglas (2009, Chap. 1).

See Sect. 3.3 and the fears of a “conspiracy” of climate scientists and some policymakers.

See Beck (2009, pp. 37f); Sarewitz (2004); Grundmann and Stehr (2011, p. 29).

For instance, the formulation of policy problems is sometimes done in an idiosyncratic manner by policymakers. Furthermore, science policy may be politically biased, given the fact that institutional settings already involve many value judgements (Beck 2009, pp. 96f).

In other words, the sciences should not become a “fifth branch” in democracies beside the three classical branches and beside agency officials (Jasanoff 1990, p. 3).

Many experts have their own political interests and ideas concerning themselves, their institutions, academic communities and society. The opportunity to influence policy via scientific assessments might be chosen as a way to exert one’s own political opinions. See also Grundmann and Stehr (2011, p. 14), arguing that some scientists want to make the world a better place with the help of their scientific statements. Anyways, a scientist’s work can never be fully separated from one’s own personality (see also Chap. 5; Grundmann and Stehr 2011, p. 175).

Trust can be lost through the issues discussed above, especially through errors and a bias, including bias in the choice of personnel, as critics have accused the IPCC (see Sect. 3.3). Trust can decline further if the IPCC gives the impression that there are “academic gatekeepers,” creating an academic coterie with no access for critical scientists. In the case of climate sciences, the communication between scientists and the public is badly disturbed (see Sect. 3.3).

“There is a kind of arrogance – we are scientists and we know best,” Jasanoff said. “That needs to change.” (source: http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/02/scientists-grapple-with-complete.html, accessed 20 Mar 2015).

Some scientists and policymakers even argue that people are so stupid or disinterested in scientific subtleties that there is no choice but to transform scientific assessments into clear-cut, simple statements – which however involves all the risks just mentioned.

See http://www.ipcc.ch/apps/eventmanager/documents/11/280220141142-inf1_future_of_ipcc_govt_comments.pdf and the synthesis in http://www.ipcc.ch/apps/eventmanager/documents/11/170320140356-p39_doc7_future_work_of_IPCC_synthesis_of_gov_submissions.pdf, accessed 30 Mar 2015.

See http://www.qando.net/?p=10156, accessed 14 Mar 2015. Lindzen is a climate scientist who had been an IPCC author. He is one of very few professional climate scientists today who denies the strong anthropogenic influence on climate change. Using Internet search engines, one will immediately find plenty more statements by him of this kind. For a comprehensive overview of the core controversies in the public (rather than the science-internal) debate on global warming see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy, accessed 14 Jan 2015.

Interestingly, the most active critics of climate science are in the US, and climate scepticism in the US can mostly be found among non-scientist, Republican partisans, according to a poll by Stanford University (http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=10987). Studies discussing the reasons for this and strong political-economic interests behind this latter party of the climate war include Oreskes and Conway (2010), Powell (2010), Mann (2012), and NGO reports such as http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/planet-2/report/2010/3/dealing-in-doubt.pdf and http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf. Also, European companies play a role in this game, see http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2010/10/25/politics-european-energy-companies-funding-climate-skeptic-campaigns-in-the-u-s/ (all web links accessed 30 Mar 2015). The climate change “denial industry” (Oreskes and Conway 2010) partly triggered and staged the affairs following below. The idea obviously was to attack the scientific credibility of one of the most important players in climate policy, namely the IPCC.

See, for instance, Russell et al. (2010); Nerlich (2010); and http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html#.VTiGzJNqO1k (accessed 30 Mar 2015). The exonerating results of these investigations were far less reported in the media than the initial accusations against the scientists.

See Rahmstorf (2010). See also http://www.fr-online.de/klimawandel/klimawandel-die-wahrheit-ueber-fehler-des-klimarats,1473244,2679180.html, http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/kampagne-gegen-klimaforscher-wo-wuesten-hokuspokus-sind-1.13981 and http://bazonline.ch/wissen/natur/Die-gescheiterten-Angriffe-auf-die-Klimaforscher-/story/26665921 (all accessed 30 Mar 2015) for newspaper articles on the accusations against the IPCC and the reactions of media and scientists.

PBL (2010). Regarding the objections against climate scientists and the IPCC, Bert Bolin concludes that they are “seldom found in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, but rather in personal interviews and, of course, on the internet. Home pages expressing doubts are quite numerous, but are often simply not trustworthy. However, this ‘grey’ literature sometimes catches the attention of a wide circle of non-specialists and is misleading the general public” (Bolin 2007, p. 209). Another very clear statement on this reads: “Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn’t what happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that purports to refute global warming” (http://www.skepticalscience.com/, accessed 14 Mar 2015).

See http://www.nature.com/climate/2010/1004/full/climate.2010.29.html. See furthermore http://www.global-warming-forecasts.com/underestimates.php, which also states that the IPCC AR4 underestimated climate risks. All accessed 14 Mar 2015.

“During both periods [of the analysis presented in their paper, M.K.], new scientific findings were more than twenty times as likely to support the ASC [Asymmetry of Scientific Challenge, M.K.] perspective than the usual framing of the issue in the U.S. mass media. The findings indicate that supposed challenges to the scientific consensus on global warming need to be subjected to greater scrutiny, as well as showing that, if reporters wish to discuss ‘both sides’ of the climate issue, the scientifically legitimate ‘other side’ is that, if anything, global climate disruption may prove to be significantly worse than has been suggested in scientific consensus estimates to date” (Freudenburg and Muselli 2010).

See Tavoni and Tol (2010) and, much stronger, Tol’s assertions in blogs, e.g., http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2010/09/richard-tol-challenges-assertion-by.html, accessed 14 Mar 2015.

See http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/0,1518,686205,00.html, accessed 14 Mar 2015.

See http://www.marklynas.org/2011/06/new-ipcc-error-renewables-report-conclusion-was-dictated-by-greenpeace/ and http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/24/greenpeace-and-the-ipcc-the-edenhofer-excuse/. Compare, however, the reply by Edenhofer (2011) defending the SRREN and rejecting the arguments by the critics. The disputed Greenpeace scenario is only one among others in the report, but it was the IPCC press briefing that did not satisfyingly make this relativity clear. For the danger of bias “in the other political direction” see the role of oil nations and others in the negotiations of the SRREN SPM, e.g. Teske’s report on http://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/ipcc-report-klimarat-haelt-energiewende-bis-2050-fuer-moeglich/4153282.html (all links accessed 14 Mar 2015).

The article (published 16 Apr 2014) was titled “Another week, another report,” see http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21600967-options-limiting-climate-change-are-narrowing-another-week-another-report, accessed 30 Mar 2015.

See http://www.economist.com/news/letters/21601482-ipcc-russia-afghanistan-banks-jobs-parliament-beer-cheese-adrian-mole, accessed 30 Mar 2015.

For a defence of what the WG III did, see Edenhofer and Minx (2014).

Trade-offs between salience, credibility and legitimacy are also identified by Cash et al. (2003). Similar trade-offs are described by Habermas (1968) and Pielke (2007).

Aldred, Jonathan. 2009. Ethics and climate change cost-benefit analysis: Stern and after. New Political Economy 14(4): 469–488.CrossRef

Antilla, Liisa. 2010. Self-censorship and science: A geographical review of media coverage of climate tipping points. Public Understanding of Science 19(2): 240–256.CrossRef

Bammé, Arno. 2004. Science wars. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.

Bammé, Arno. 2009. Science and technology studies. Marburg: Metropolis.

Beck, Silke. 2009. Das Klimaexperiment und der IPCC. Schnittstellen zwischen Wissenschaft und Politik in den internationalen Beziehungen. Marburg: Metropolis.

Blum, Sonja, and Klaus Schubert. 2009. Politikfeldanalyse. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Bolin, Bert. 2007. A history of the science and politics of climate change: The role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Booker, Christopher, and Richard North. 2009, December 9. Questions over business deals of UN climate change guru Dr Rajendra Pachauri. The Daily Telegraph.

Brown, Mark B. 2009. Science in democracy: Expertise, institutions, and representation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRef

Brysse, Keynyn, Naomi Oreskes, Jessica O’Reilly, and Michael Oppenheimer. 2012. Climate change prediction: Erring on the side of least drama? Global Environmental Change 23: 327–337.CrossRef

Carraro, Carlo, Chales Kolstad, and Robert Stavins. 2015. Assessment and communication of the social science of climate change: Bridging research and policy. Memorandum from Workshop conducted 18–20 February 2015 in Berlin. http://www.mcc-berlin.net/fileadmin/data/pdf/climate_assessment_memorandum-1.pdf. Accessed 10 Apr 2015.

Cash, David W., William C. Clark, Frank Alcock, Nancy M. Dickson, Noelle Eckley, David H. Guston, Jill Jäger, and Ronald B. Mitchell. 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. PNAS 100(14): 8086–8091.CrossRef

Dasgupta, Partha. 2007. Commentary: The Stern Review’s economics of climate change. National Institute Economic Review 199: 4–7.

DeCanio, Stephen J. 2003. Economic models of climate change. A critique. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRef

Douglas, Heather E. 2009. Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Dunn, William. 1994. Public policy analysis: An introduction, 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Edenhofer, Ottmar. 2006. Die Kopernikanische Wende. http://www.pik-potsdam.de/members/edenh/publications-1/Boell_06.pdf. Accessed 13 Aug 2014.

Edenhofer, Ottmar. 2011. Different views ensure IPCC balance. Commentary. Nature Climate Change1: 229–230.

Edenhofer, Ottmar, and Jan Minx. 2014. Mapmakers and navigators, facts and values. Policy forum: Climate policy. Science 345(6192): 37f.CrossRef

Elzinga, Aant. 1996. Shaping worldwide consensus. The orchestration of global change research. In Internationalism and science, ed. Aant Elzinga and Catharina Landström, 223–255. London: Taylor Graham.

Freudenburg, William R., and Violetta Muselli. 2010. Global warming estimates, media expectations, and the asymmetry of scientific challenge. Global Environmental Change 20(3): 483–491.CrossRef

Funtowicz, Silvio O., and Jerome R. Ravetz. 1991. A new scientific methodology for global environmental issues. In Ecological economics: The science and management of sustainability, ed. Robert Costanza, 137–152. New York: Columbia University Press.

Gormley Jr., William T. 2007. Public policy analysis: Ideas and impacts. Annual Review of Political Science 10: 297–313.CrossRef

Grundmann, Reiner, and Nico Stehr. 2011. Die Macht der Erkenntnis. Berlin: Suhrkamp. English edition: Stehr, Nico, and Reiner Grundmann. 2011. Experts: The knowledge and power of expertise. London: Routledge.

Grunwald, Armin. 2008. Technik und Politikberatung. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

Haas, Peter. 1992. Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization 46: 1–35.CrossRef

Habermas, Jürgen. 1968. Technik und Wissenschaft als Ideologie. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. English edition: Habermas, Jürgen. 1971. Toward a rational society. Boston: Beacon Press.

Hickmann, Thomas. 2014. Science–policy interaction in international environmental politics: An analysis of the ozone regime and the climate regime. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies 16: 21–44.CrossRef

Hof, Andries F., Michel G.J. den Elzen, and Detlef P. van Vuuren. 2008. Analysing the costs and benefits of climate policy: Value judgements and scientific uncertainties. Global Enviromental Change 18(3): 412–424.CrossRef

Howlett, Michael, and M. Ramesh. 2009. Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems, 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hulme, Mike. 2009. Why we disagree about climate change: Understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

IAC. 2010. Climate change assessments: Review of the process and procedures of the IPCC. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/IAC_report/IAC%20Report.pdf. Accessed 13 Mar 2015.

IISD. 2014. Summary of the twelfth session of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the thirty-ninth session of the IPCC: 7–12 April 2014. Earth Negotiations Bulletin 12(597), http://www.iisd.ca/download/pdf/enb12597e.pdf. Accessed 30 Mar 2015.

IPCC. eds. Bert Metz, Ogunlade Davidson, Peter Bosch, Rutu Dave, and Leo Meyer. 2007. Climate change 2007: Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

IPCC. eds. Ottmar Edenhofer, Ramón P. Madruga, Youba Sokona, Kristin Seyboth, Patrick Matschoss, Susanne Kadner, and Timm Zwickel, et al. 2011. Renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation: Special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

IPCC. eds. Christopher B. Field, Vicente Barros, Thomas F. Stocker, Dahe Qin, David J. Dokken, Kristie L. Ebi, and Michael D. Mastrandrea et al. 2012. Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation. A special report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

IPCC. eds. Ottmar Edenhofer, Ramón Pichs-Madruga, Youba Sokona, Ellie Farahani, Susanne Kadner, Kristin Seyboth, and Anna Adler, et al. 2014. Climate change 2014 – Mitigation of climate change: Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jasanoff, Sheila. 1990. The fifth branch: Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Joerges, Bernward, and Helga Nowotny (eds.). 2003. Social studies of science and technology: Looking back, ahead. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Keller, Ann. 2009. Science in environmental policy: The politics of objective advice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRef

Kleinewefers, Henner. 2008. Einführung in die Wohlfahrtsökonomie. Theorie; Anwendung; Kritik. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

Kowarsch, Martin. 2014. What are scientific assessments? MCC Working Paper. http://www.mcc-berlin.net/fileadmin/data/Publikationen_old/2-What_are_assessments_v20141124.pdf. Accessed 13 Mar 2015.

Kuhn, Thomas S. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kuruvilla, Shyama, and Philipp Dorstewitz. 2010. There is no ‘point’ in decision-making: A model of transactive rationality for public policy and administration. Policy Sciences 43(3): 263–287.CrossRef

Latour, Bruno. 1999. On recalling ANT. In Actor network theory and after, ed. John Law and John Hassard, 15–25. Oxford: Blackwell.

Lenton, Timothy, Hermann Held, Elmar Kriegler, Jim Hall, Wolfgang Lucht, Stefan Rahmstorf, and Hans Joachim Schellnhuber. 2008. Tipping elements in the earth’s climate system. PNAS 105(6): 1786–1793.CrossRef

Luhmann, Hans-Jochen. 2010. Auf welche Wissenschaft beruft sich die Politik beim Zwei-Grad-Ziel? GAIA 19: 175–177.

Maasen, Sabine, and Peter Weingart. 2005. What’s new in scientific advice to policy? In Democratization of expertise? Exploring novel forms of scientific advice in political decision-making, ed. Sabine Maasen and Peter Weingart, 1–19. Dordrecht: Springer.

Mann, Michael E. 2012. The hockey stick and the climate wars: Dispatches from the front lines. New York: Columbia University Press.

Merton, Robert K. 1942. Science and technology in a democratic order. Journal of Legal and Political Sociology 1: 115–126.

Mitchell, Ronald B., William C. Clark, David W. Cash, and Nancy M. Dickson (eds.). 2006. Global environmental assessments: Information and influence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Nerlich, Brigitte. 2010. ‘Climategate’: Paradoxical metaphors and political paralysis. Environmental Values 19(4): 419–442.CrossRef

Nordhaus, William D. 2007. A review of the Stern Review on the economics of climate change. Journal of Economic Literature 45(3): 686–702.CrossRef

Oreskes, Naomi, and Erik M. Conway. 2010. Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

PBL. 2010. Assessing an IPCC assessment. An analysis of statements on projected regional impacts in the 2007 report. Report by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.

Pielke Jr., Roger A. 2007. The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Pooley, Eric. 2009. How much would you pay to save the planet? The American Press and the Economics of Climate Change. Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy. Discussion Paper Series. http://shorensteincenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/d49_pooley.pdf. Accessed 13 Aug 2014.

Pooley, Eric. 2010. The climate war: True believers, power brokers, and the fight to save the earth. New York: Hyperion.

Powell, James L. 2010. Inquisition of climate science. New York: Columbia University Press.

Rahmstorf, Stefan. 2010. Neue Qualität des Surrealen. zeozwei 2: 14–15.

Russell, Sir Muir, Geoffrey Boulton, Peter Clarke, David Eyton, and James Norton. 2010. The independent climate change email review. http://www.cce-review.org/. Accessed 13 Aug 2014.

Sabatier, Paul A. (ed.). 2007. Theories of the policy process, 2nd ed. Boulder: Westview Press.

Sabatier, Paul A., and Hank C. Jenkins-Smith. 1999. The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment. In Theories of the policy process, ed. Paul A. Sabatier, 117–166. Boulder: Westview Press.

Samuelson, Paul A., and William D. Nordhaus. 2010. Economics. International, 19th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Sarewitz, Daniel. 2004. How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science & Policy 7(5): 385–403.CrossRef

Scharpf, Fritz W. 1997. Games real actors play: Actor-centered institutionalism in policy research. Boulder: Westview Press.

Schneider, Stephen H. 1997. Integrated assessment modeling of global climate change: Transparent rational tool for policy making or opaque screen hiding value-laden assumptions? Environmental Modeling and Assessment 2(4): 229–249.CrossRef

Shulock, Nancy. 1999. The paradox of policy analysis: If it is not used, why do we produce so much of it? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 18(2): 226–244.CrossRef

Sismondo, Sergio. 2010. An introduction to science and technology studies, 2nd ed. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.

Skodvin, Tora. 1999. Science-policy interaction in the global greenhouse. Institutional design and institutional performance in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). CICERO Working Paper 1999:3. http://www.cicero.uio.no/media/188.pdf. Accessed 13 Aug 2014.

Stern, Nicolas. 2007. The economics of climate change. The Stern Review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Tavoni, Massimo, and Richard S.J. Tol. 2010. Counting only the hits? The risk of underestimating the costs of stringent climate policy. A letter. Climatic Change 100(3–4): 769–778.CrossRef

UNFCCC. 2009. The Copenhagen Accord. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/cop15/eng/l07.pdf. Accessed 13 Aug 2014.

UNFCCC. 2015a. Streamlined and consolidated text. Durban platform for enhanced action. http://unfccc.int/files/bodies/awg/application/pdf/adp2-9_i3_11jun2015t1630_np.pdf. Accessed 17 Jun 2015.

UNFCCC. 2015b. Letter from the Secretariat of UNFCCC. Submitted by the IPCC Secretariat. http://www.ipcc.ch/apps/eventmanager/documents/27/180220150448-Doc.%2022%20-%20Letter%20from%20Secretariat%20UNFCCC.pdf.

Victor, David G. 2015. Climate change: Embed the social sciences in climate policy. Comment. Nature 520: 27–29.CrossRef

Weber, Max. 1972. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundriss der verstehenden Soziologie. 5th ed. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. English edition: Weber, Max. 1978. Economy and society (trans. and ed. Roth, G., and C. Wittich. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Weber, Max. 2006. Die protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus. 2nd ed. Ed. Dirk Kaesler. Munich: Beck.

Weber, Max. 2014. Wissenschaft als Beruf. Berlin: Europäischer Literaturverlag.

Weinberg, Alvin M. 1972. Science and trans-science. Minerva 10(2): 209–222.CrossRef

Weingart, Peter, Anita Engels, and Petra Pansegrau. 2007. Von der Hypothese zur Katastrophe: Der anthropogene Klimawandel im Diskurs zwischen Wissenschaft, Politik und Massenmedien, 2nd ed. Opladen: Budrich.

Weston, Samuel. 1994. Toward a better understanding of the positive/normative distinction in economics. Economics and Philosophy 10(1): 1–17.CrossRef

Wible, Brad. 2014. IPCC lessons from Berlin. Policy forum: Climate policy. Science 345(6192): 34.CrossRef

Titel: Fundamental Perils for Scientific Assessments
verfasst von: Martin Kowarsch
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: A Pragmatist Orientation for the Social Sciences in Climate Policy
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-43279-3

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-43281-6

Copyright-Jahr: 2016
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43281-6_3

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"