Book contents
- A Critical Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
- A Critical Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Boxes
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Acknowledgements
- Abbreviations
- 1 Why the Need for This Book?
- Part I Governance
- Part II Participation
- Part III Knowledges
- Part IV Processes
- Part V Influence
- Glossary
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
Bibliography
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 December 2022
Book contents
- A Critical Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
- A Critical Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Boxes
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Acknowledgements
- Abbreviations
- 1 Why the Need for This Book?
- Part I Governance
- Part II Participation
- Part III Knowledges
- Part IV Processes
- Part V Influence
- Glossary
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
- Creative Commons
This content is Open Access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/cclicenses/
References
Adler, C. E. and Hirsch Hadorn, G. (2014). The IPCC and treatment of uncertainties: topics and sources of dissensus. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 5(5): 663–676.Google Scholar
Afsen, K. H. and Skodvin, T. (1998). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Scientific Consensus: How Scientists Come to Say What They Say about Climate Change. CICERO Policy Note 1998:3, University of Oslo, ISSN: 0804-4511.Google Scholar
Agarwal, A., Kalpana, S. and Ravi, C. (1982). State of India’s Environment: A Citizen’s Report. New Delhi: Centre for Science and Environment.Google Scholar
Agarwal, A. and Narain, S. (1991). Global Warming in an Unequal World. New Delhi: Centre for Science and the Environment.Google Scholar
Agrawala, S. (1998a). Context and early origins of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climatic Change, 39(4): 605–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agrawala, S. (1998b). Structural and process history of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climatic Change, 39(4): 621–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agrawala, S., Broad, K. and Guston, D. H. (2001). Integrating climate forecasts and societal decision making: challenges to an emergent boundary organization. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 26( 4): 454–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahmed, S. (2012). On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life. Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Alcamo, J., Bouwman, A., Edmonds, J., et al. (1995). An evaluation of the IPCC IS92 emission scenarios. In: Houghton, J. T., et al. (eds.), Climate Change 1994: Reports of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, forming part of the IPCC Special Report to the first session of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Allan, J., Gutiérrez, M. and Bhandari, R. (2016). Summary of the 44th Session of the IPCC: 17–20 October 2016, Earth Negotiations Bulletin, 12 (677). International Institute for Sustainable Development – Reporting Services.Google Scholar
Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. New York: Verso Books.Google Scholar
Anderson, K. (2015). Duality in climate science. Nature Geoscience, 8: 898–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, K. and Jewell, J. (2019). Debating the bedrock of climate-change mitigation scenarios. Nature, 57: 348–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, K. and Peters, G. (2016). The trouble with negative emissions. Science, 354: 182–183.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Asayama, S. (2021). Threshold, budget and deadline: beyond the discourse of climate scarcity and control. Climatic Change, 167(3): 33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Asayama, S., Bellamy, R., Geden, O., Pearce, W. and Hulme, M. (2019). Why setting a climate deadline is dangerous. Nature Climate Change, 9(8): 570–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asayama, S. and Ishii, A. (2014). Reconstruction of the boundary between climate science and politics: the IPCC in the Japanese mass media, 1988–2007. Public Understanding of Science, 23(2): 189–203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Asdal, K. (2008). Enacting things through numbers: taking nature into account/ing. Geoforum, 39(1): 123–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Augé, M. (1995). Non-Places: Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Aven, T. (2020). Climate change risk – What is it and how should it be expressed? Journal of Risk Research, 23(11): 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aven, T. and Renn, O. (2015). An evaluation of the treatment of risk and uncertainties in the IPCC reports on climate change. Risk Analysis, 35(4): 701–712.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ayers, J. M. and Huq, S. (2009). The value of linking mitigation and adaptation: a case study of Bangladesh. Environmental Management, 43(5): 753–764.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aykut, S. C., Morena, E. and Foyer, J. (2021). ‘Incantatory’ governance: global climate politics’ performative turn and its wider significance for global politics. International Politics, 58: 519–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bacevic, J. (2022). Epistemic injustice and epistemic positioning: towards an intersectional political economy. Current Sociology. http://doi.org/10.1177/00113921211057609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bäckstrand, K. (2015). Civic society. In: Pattberg, P. and Zelli, F. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Global Environmental Governance and Politics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Baker, M. (2015). Over half of psychology studies fail reproducibility test. Nature, 27 August. http://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2015.18248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barkemeyer, R., Dessai, S., Monge-Sanz, B., Renzi, B. G., and Napolitano, G. (2016). Linguistic analysis of IPCC summaries for policymakers and associated coverage. Nature Climate Change, 6(3): 311–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, J. (2021). Green republicanism and a ‘Just Transition’ from the tyranny of economic growth. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 24(5): 725–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, A., Born, G. and Weszkalnys, G. (2008). Logics of interdisciplinarity. Economy and Society, 37(1): 20–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bazeley, P. (2003). Defining ‘early career’ in research. Higher Education, 45: 257–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beatty, J. and Moore, A. (2010). Should we aim for consensus? Episteme, A Journal of Social Epistemology, 7(3): 198–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, S. (2011a). Moving beyond the linear model of expertise? IPCC and the test of adaptation. Regional Environmental Change, (11): 297–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, S. (2011b). Between tribalism and trust: the IPCC under the ‘public microscope’. Nature and Culture, 7(2): 151–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, S. (2012). The challenges of building cosmopolitan climate expertise: the case of Germany. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 3(1): 1–17.Google Scholar
Beck, S. and Forsyth, T. J. (2015). Co-production and democratizing global environmental expertise: The IPCC and adaptation to climate change. In: Hilgartner, S., Miller, C. A. and Hagendijk, R. (eds.), Science and Democracy: Making Knowledge and Making Power in the Biosciences and Beyond. New York: Routledge. pp. 113–132.Google Scholar
Beck, S. and Mahony, M. (2018a). The IPCC and the new map of science and politics. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 9(6): e547.Google Scholar
Beck, S. and Mahony, M. (2018b). The politics of anticipation: the IPCC and the negative emission technologies experience. Global Sustainability, 1: e8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, S. and Oomen, J. (2021). Imagining the corridor of climate mitigation – What is at stake in IPCC’s politics of anticipation? Environmental Science & Policy, 123: 169–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, S., Borie, M., Chilvers, J., et al. (2014). Towards a reflexive turn in the governance of global environmental expertise. The cases of the IPCC and the IPBES. GAIA, 23(2): 80–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, S., Jasanoff, S., Stirling, A. and Polzin, C. (2021). The governance of sociotechnical transformations to sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 49: 143–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, U., Giddens, A. and Lash, S. (1994). Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Begum, R. A., Lempert, R., Ali, E., et al. (2022). Point of departure and key concepts. In: Pörtner, H. O. et al. (eds.), Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–102.Google Scholar
Bell, M. L., Davis, D. L. and Fletcher, T. (2004). A retrospective assessment of mortality from the London smog episode of 1952: the role of influenza and pollution. Environmental Health Perspectives, 112(1): 6–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bernstein, S. (2001). The Compromise of Liberal Environmentalism. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biermann, F. (2001). Big science, small impacts–in the South? The influence of global environmental assessments on expert communities in India. Global Environmental Change, 11(4): 297–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biermann, F. (2011). New actors and mechanisms of global governance. In: Dryzek, J. S., Norgaard, R. B. and Schlosberg, D. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 685–695.Google Scholar
Biermann, F. (2020). World environment organization. In: Morin, J. F. and Orsini, A. (eds.), Essential Concepts of Global Environmental Governance. Abingdon: Routledge. pp. 291–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjurström, A. and Polk, M. (2011). Physical and economic bias in climate change research: a scientometric study of IPCC Third Assessment Report. Climatic Change, 108(1): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodansky, D. (2001). The history of the global climate change regime. In: Luterbacher, U. and Sprinz, D. F. (eds.), International Relations and Global Climate Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. pp. 23–40.Google Scholar
Boehmer-Christiansen, S. (1994a). Global climate protection policy: the limits of scientific advice. Part 1. Global Environmental Change, 4: 140–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boehmer-Christiansen, S. (1994b). Global climate protection policy: the limits of scientific advice. Part 2. Global Environmental Change, 4: 185–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boehmer-Christiansen, S. (1995). Britain and the International Panel on Climate Change: the impact of scientific advice on global warming, Parts 1 and 2. Environmental Politics, 4(1): 1–18 and (2):175–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boehmer-Christiansen, S. (1996). Political pressure in the formation of scientific consensus. Energy and Environment, 7: 365–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boehmer-Christiansen, S. and Kellow, A. (2002). International Environmental Policy. Interests and the Failure of the Kyoto Process. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolin, B. (1991). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In: Jäger, J. and Ferguson, H. L. (eds.), Climate Change: Science, Impacts, and Policy, Proceedings of the Second World Climate Conference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bolin, B. (2007). A History of the Science and Politics of Climate Change: The Role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bony, S., Stevens, B., Held, I. H., et al. (2013). Carbon dioxide and climate: perspectives on a scientific assessment. In: Asrar, G. and Hurrell, J. (eds.), Climate Science for Serving Society. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. pp. 391–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borie, M., Gustrafsson, K. M., Obermeister, N., Turnhour, E. and Bridgewater, P. (2020). Institutionalising reflexivity? Transformative learning and the Intergovernmental science-policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Environmental Science & Policy, 110: 71–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borie, M., Mahony, M., Obermeister, N. and Hulme, M. (2021). Knowing like a global expert organization: comparative insights from the IPCC and IPBES. Global Environmental Change, 68: 102261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bounegru, L., De Pryck, K., Venturini, T. and Mauri, M. (2020). ‘We only have 12 years’: YouTube and the IPCC Report on Global Warming of 1.5oC. First Monday, 25(2). Available at: https://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/10112 (Accessed: 2 July 2020).Google Scholar
Boykoff, M. and Pearman, O. (2019). Now or never: how media coverage of the IPCC Special Report on 1.5°C shaped climate-action deadlines. One Earth, 1(3): 285–288.Google Scholar
Boykoff, M. T. and Yulsman, T. (2013). Political economy, media, and climate change: sinews of modern life. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 4(5): 359–371.Google Scholar
Broome, J. (2020). Philosophy in the IPCC. In: Brister, E. and Frodeman, R. (eds.), Philosophy for the Real World. London: Routledge. pp. 95–110.Google Scholar
Brown, H. and Green, M. (2017). Demonstrating development: meetings as management in Kenya’s health sector. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 23(S1): 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, H., Reed, A. and Yarrow, T. (2017). Introduction: towards an ethnography of meeting. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 23(S1): 10–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, M. B. (2009). Science in Democracy: Expertise, Institutions and Representation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruce, J. P., Lee, H. and Haites, E. F. (eds.) (1996). Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change–Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bruine de Bruin, W., Rabinovich, L., Weber, K., Babboni, M., Dean, M. and Ignon, L. (2021). Public understanding of climate change terminology. Climatic Change, 167(3–4): 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brysse, K., Oreskes, N., O’Reilly, J. and Oppenheimer, M. (2013). Climate change prediction: erring on the side of least drama? Global Environmental Change, 23(1): 327–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callaghan, M., Schleussner, C.-F., Nath, S., et al. (2021). Machine-learning-based evidence and attribution mapping of 100,000 climate impact studies. Nature Climate Change, 11: 966–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, L. M., Corson, C., Gray, N. J., MacDonald, K. I. and Brosius, J. P. (2014). Studying global environmental meetings to understand global environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics, 14(3): 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, M., James, L. C. and Fuller, H. A. (2014). A new social contract for the IPCC. Nature Climate Change, 4: 1038–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carraro, C., Edenhofer, O., Flachsland, C., Kolstad, C., Stavins, R. and Stowe, R. (2015). The IPCC at a crossroads: opportunities for reform. Science, 350 (6256): 34–35.Google Scholar
Carton, W., Asiyanbi, A., Beck, S., Buck, H. and Lund, J. (2020). Negative emissions and the long history of carbon removal. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change. 11(6): e671.Google Scholar
Casado, M., Gremion, G., Rosenbaum, P., et al. (2019). The benefits to climate science of including early career scientists as reviewers. Geoscience Communication, 3: 89–97.Google Scholar
Caseldine, C. J., Turney, C., and Long, A. J. (2010). IPCC and palaeoclimate: an evolving story? Journal of Quaternary Science, 25(1): 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cash, D., Clark, W., Alcock, F., Dickson, N., Eckley, M. and Jäger, J. (2002). Salience, Credibility, Legitimacy and Boundaries: Linking Research, Assessment and Decision Making. WP RWP02–046, Faculty Research Working Papers Series, John F Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Castells, M. (2018). Rupture: The Crisis of Liberal Democracy. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Castree, N., Bellamy, R. and Osaka, S. (2021). The future of global environmental assessments: making a case for fundamental change. The Anthropocene Review, 8(1): 56–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, G., Carraro, C., Edenhofer, O., Kolstad, C. and Stavins, R. (2016). Reforming the IPCC’s Assessment of Climate Change Economics. Climate Change Economics, 7(1): 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, D., Rojas, M., Samset, B. H., et al. (2021). Framing, context, and methods. In: Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., et al. (eds.), Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chubin, D. E. and Hackett, E. J. (1990). Peerless Science: Peer Review and U.S. Science Policy. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Clarke, L., Jiang, K., Akimoto, M., et al. (2014). Assessing transformation pathways. In: Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madrugada, R., Sokona, Y., et al. (eds.), 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 and New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 413–510.Google Scholar
Clark, W. C., Mitchell, R. B. and Cash, D. W. (2006). Evaluating the influence of global environmental assessments. In: Mitchell, R. B., Clark, W. C., Cash, W. and Dickson, N. (eds.), Global Environmental Assessments: Information and Influence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. pp. 1–28.Google Scholar
Cointe, B., Cassen, C. and Nadaï, A. (2019). Organising policy-relevant knowledge for climate action: Integrated Assessment Modelling, the IPCC, and the emergence of a collective expertise on socioeconomic emission scenarios. Science and Technology Studies, 32(4): 36–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cointe, B., Ravon, P.-A. and Guérin, E. (2011). 2°C: The History of a Policy-Science Nexus. 19/11. Paris: IDDRI.Google Scholar
Compagnon, D. and Bernstein, S. (2017). Nondemarcated spaces of knowledge-informed policy making. Review of Policy Research, 34(6): 812–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbera, E., Calvet-Mir, L., Hughes, H. and Paterson, M. (2016). Patterns of authorship in the IPCC Working Group III report. Nature Climate Change, 6: 94–99.Google Scholar
Corner, A. and Groves, C. (2014). Breaking the climate change communication deadlock. Nature Climate Change, 4(9): 743–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craggs, R. and Mahony, M. (2014). The geographies of the conference: knowledge, performance and protest. Geography Compass, 8(6): 414–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curry, J. A. and Webster, P. J. (2013). Climate change: no consensus on consensus. CAB Reviews, 8(001): 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahan-Dalmedico, A. (2008). Climate expertise: between scientific credibility and geopolitical imperatives. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 33(1): 71–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahan-Dalmedico, A. (2010). Putting the Earth System in a numerical box? The evolution from climate modeling toward climate change. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 41(3): 282–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, T. and Fløttum, K. (2017). Verbal-visual harmony or dissonance? A news values analysis of multimodal news texts on climate change. Discourse, Context & Media, 20: 124–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dairon, E. and Badache, F. (2021). Understanding international organizations’ headquarters as ecosystems: the case of Geneva. Global Policy, 12(Sup.7): 24–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dauvergne, P. (2021). Global governance and the Anthropocene: explaining the escalating global crisis. In: Weiss, T. G. and Wilkinson, R. (eds.), Global Governance Futures. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
David-Chavez, D. M. and Gavin, M. C. (2018). A global assessment of Indigenous community engagement in climate research. Environmental Research Letters, 13(123005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Pryck, K. (2018). Expertise under Controversy: The Case of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). PhD Dissertation, Institut d’études politiques de Paris and Université de Genève.Google Scholar
De Pryck, K. (2021a). Intergovernmental expert consensus in the making: the case of the summary for policy makers of the IPCC 2014 Synthesis Report. Global Environmental Politics, 21(1): 108–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Pryck, K. (2021b). Controversial practices: tracing the proceduralization of the IPCC in time and space. Global Policy, 12(Sup.7): 80–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Pryck, K. and Wanneau, K. (2017). (Anti)-boundary work in global environmental change research and assessment. Environmental Science & Policy, 77: 203–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Death, C. (2011). Summit theatre: exemplary governmentality and environmental diplomacy in Johannesburg and Copenhagen. Environmental Politics, 20(1): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delvenne, P. and Parotte, C. (2019). Breaking the myth of neutrality: technology assessment has politics, technology assessment as politics. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 139: 64–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demeritt, D. (2001). The construction of global warming and the politics of science. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 91(2): 307–337.Google Scholar
Demeritt, D. and Rothman, D. (1999). Figuring the costs of climate change: an assessment and critique. Environment and Planning A, 31(3): 389–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devès, M. H., Lang, M., Bourrelier, P.-H. and Valérian, F. (2017). Why the IPCC should evolve in response to the UNFCCC bottom-up strategy adopted in Paris? An opinion from the French Association for Disaster Risk Reduction. Environmental Science & Policy, 78(Supplement C): 142–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Díaz, S., Settele, J., Brondizio, E. S., et al. (2019). Pervasive human-driven decline of life on earth points to the need for transformative change. Science, 366: 1327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Díaz-Reviriego, I., Turnhout, E. and Beck, S. (2019). Participation and inclusiveness in the Intergovernmental Science–Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Nature Sustainability, 2: 457–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Draper, D. (1995). Assessment and propagation of model uncertainty. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B: Statistical Methodology, 57: 45–97.Google Scholar
Duarte, T. (2019). O painel brasileiro de mudanças climáticas na interface entre ciência e políticas públicas: identidades, geopolítica e concepções epistemológicas. Sociologias, 21 : 76–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dudman, K. and de Wit, S. (2021). An IPCC that listens: introducing reciprocity to climate change communication. Climatic Change, 168(1–2): 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunlap, R. E. and McCright, A. M. (2011). Organized climate change denial. In: Dryzek, J. S., Norgaard, R. B. and Schlosberg, D. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 144–160.Google Scholar
Dupuy, J. P. (2012). The precautionary principle and enlightened doomsaying. Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale, (4): 577–592.Google Scholar
Dryzek, J. S. (2012). Foundations and Frontiers of Deliberative Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
ECOSOC and Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (2007). Report of the Secretariat on Indigenous Traditional Knowledge. Available at: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20845205 (Accessed: 12 February 2022).Google Scholar
ECOSOC and Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (2013a). Study on How the Knowledge, History and Contemporary Social Circumstances of Indigenous Peoples are Embedded in the Curricula of Education Systems. Available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/746773?ln=en (Accessed: 12 February 2022).Google Scholar
ECOSOC and Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (2013b). Study on Resilience, Traditional Knowledge and Capacity-Building for Pastoralist Communities in Africa. http://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199560103.003.0007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ECOSOC and Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (2014). Study to Examine Challenges in the African Region to Protecting Traditional Knowledge, Genetic Resources and Folklore. http://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199560103.003.0007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ECOSOC and Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (2015). Study on the Treatment of Traditional Knowledge in the Framework of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Post-2015 Development Agenda. UN Digital Library. Available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/788550?ln=en (Accessed: 12 February 2022).Google Scholar
Edenhofer, O. (2011). Different views ensure IPCC balance. Nature Climate Change, 1: 229–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edenhofer, O. and Kowarsch, M. (2015). Cartography of pathways: a new model for environmental policy assessments. Environmental Science & Policy, 51: 56–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, P. N. (1999). Global climate science, uncertainty and politics: data-laden models, models-filtered data. Science as Culture, 8(4): 437–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, P. N. (2010). A Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data and the Politics of Global Warming. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Edwards, P. N. and Schneider, S. H. (1997). IPCC 1995 Report: Broad consensus or ‘scientific cleansing’? Ecofables/Ecoscience, 1: 3–9.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. A. and Edwards, P. N. (eds.), Changing the Atmosphere: Expert Knowledge and Environmental Governance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. pp. 219–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekwurzel, B., Frumhoff, P. C. and McCarthy, J. J. (2011). Climate uncertainties and their discontents: increasing the impact of assessments on public understanding of climate risks and choices. Climatic Change, 108(4): 791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
El-Hinnawi, E. (2011). The intergovernmental panel on climate change and developing countries. The Environmentalist, 31(3): 197–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elzinga, A. (1996). Shaping worldwide consensus: the orchestration of global change research. In: Elzinga, A. and Landström, C. (eds.), Internationalism and Science. London: Taylor Graham. pp. 223–255.Google Scholar
ENB [Earth Negotiations Bulletin] (2021). Summary of the 54th Session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the 14th Session of Working Group I: 26 July–6 August 2021. IISD, 12(781): 1–27.Google Scholar
ERC [European Research Council] (2021). Starting Grant. Available at: https://erc.europa.eu/funding/starting-grants (Accessed: 16 December 2021).Google Scholar
ETC Group (2017). Re: Conflicts of Interest of Authors on the IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5°C Above Pre-industrial Levels. Available at: www.etcgroup.org/files/files/ipcc_conflict_of_interest_release_051217.pdf (Accessed: 25 January 2022).Google Scholar
European Union (2021). 2050 Long-Term Strategy. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/climate-strategies-targets/2050-long-term-strategy_en (Accessed: 12 February 2022).Google Scholar
Ezrahi, Y. (1990). The Descent of Icarus: Science and the Transformation of Contemporary Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ezrahi, Y. (2012). Imagined Democracies: Necessary Political Fictions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fankhauser, S. and Tol, R. S. J. (1998). The value of human life in global warming impacts – a comment. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 3: 87–88.Google Scholar
Farrell, A., VanDeveer, S. D. and Jäger, J. (2001). Environmental assessments: four under-appreciated elements of design. Global Environmental Change, (11): 311–333.Google Scholar
Fearnside, P. M. (1998). The value of human life in global warming impacts. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 3: 83–85.Google Scholar
Feder, T. (1996). Attacks on IPCC report heat controversy over global warming. Physics Today, 49(8): 55–57.Google Scholar
Field, C. B. and Barros, V. R. (2015). Added value from IPCC approval sessions. Science, 350(6256): 36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fink, L. (2020). A Fundamental Reshaping of Finance. Black Rock. Available at: www.blackrock.com/corporate/investor-relations/2020-larry-fink-ceo-letter (Accessed: 12 February 2022).Google Scholar
Fiol, C. M. and Lyles, M. A. (1985). Organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 10: 803–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, F. (2019). Knowledge politics and post-truth in climate denial: on the social construction of alternative facts. Critical Policy Studies, 13(2): 133–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fløttum, K., Gasper, D. and St. Clair, A. L. (2016). Synthesizing a policy-relevant perspective from the three IPCC ‘worlds’ – a comparison of topics and frames in the SPMs of the Fifth Assessment Report. Global Environmental Change, 38: 118–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fogel, C. (2005). Biotic carbon sequestration and the Kyoto protocol: the construction of global knowledge by the intergovernmental panel on climate change. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 5(2): 191–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, J. D., Cameron, L., Rubis, J., et al. (2016). Including indigenous knowledge and experience in IPCC assessment reports. Nature Climate Change, 6: 349–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, J. D., Vanderbilt, W. and Berrang-Ford, L. (2012). Authorship in IPCC AR5 and its implications for content: climate change and Indigenous populations in WGII. Climatic Change, 113: 201–213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forest Peoples Programme et al. (2020). Local Biodiversity Outlooks 2: The contributions of indigenous peoples and local communities to the implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and to renewing nature and cultures. A compliment to the fifth edition of the Global Biodiv. Moreton-in-Marsh, UK: Forest Peoples Programme. Available at: www.localbiodiversityoutlooks.net (Accessed: 12 February 2022).Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In: Burchell, G., Gordon, C. and Miller, P. (eds.), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Franz, W. E. (1998). Science, skeptics and non-state actors in the greenhouse. ENRP Discussion Paper E-98-18. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Available at: www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/files/publication/Science%20Skeptics%20and%20Non-State%20Actors%20in%20the%20Greenhouse%20-%20E-98-18.pdf (Accessed: 19 January 2022).Google Scholar
Freedman, A. (2019). Climate scientists refute 12-year deadline to curb global warming. Axios. Available at: www.axios.com/climate-change-scientists-comment-ocasio-cortez-12-year-deadline-c4ba1f99-bc76-42ac-8b93-e4eaa926938d.html (Accessed: 15 March 2019).Google Scholar
Fry, I. (2002). Twists and turns in the jungle: exploring the evolution of land use, land–use change and forestry decisions within the Kyoto Protocol. Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, 11(2): 159–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuglesteved, J., Guivarch, C., Jones, C., et al. (2021). The SSP scenarios as used in Working Group I. Cross-Chapter Box 1.4. In: Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., et al. (eds.), Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fuller, S. (2002). Social Epistemology. 2nd ed. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Funtowicz, S. O. and Ravetz, J. R. (1990). Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy. Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funtowicz, S. O. and Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25(7): 739–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Futhazar, G. (2016). From Climate to Biodiversity – Procedural transcriptions and innovations within IPBES in the light of IPCC practices. In: Hrabanski, M. and Pesche, D. (eds.), The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Meeting the Challenge of Biodiversity Conservation and Governance. London: Routledge. pp. 102–118.Google Scholar
Garard, J. and Kowarsch, M. (2017). If at first you don’t succeed: evaluating stakeholder engagement in global environmental assessments. Environmental Science & Policy, 77: 235–243.Google Scholar
Garb, Y., Pulver, S. and VanDeveer, S. D. (2008). Scenarios in society, society in scenarios: toward a social scientific analysis of storyline-driven environmental modelling. Environmental Research Letters, 3(4): 045015.Google Scholar
Garnett, S. T., Burgess, N. D. and Fa, J. E., et al. (2018). A spatial overview of the global importance of Indigenous lands for conservation. Nature Sustainability, 1(7): 369–374.Google Scholar
Gates, W., Boyle, J. S., Covey, C., et al. (1999). An overview of the results of the Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project (AMIP 1). Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 80(1): 29–56.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaulkin, T. (2021). Why the bad news in IPCC reports is good news for visual learners. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Available at: https://thebulletin.org/2021/08/why-the-bad-news-in-the-ipcc-report-is-good-news-for-visual-learners/ (Accessed: 20 August 2021).Google Scholar
Gay-Antaki, M. (2021). Stories from the IPCC: an essay on climate science in fourteen questions. Global Environmental Change, 71: 102384.Google Scholar
Gay-Antaki, M. and Liverman, D. (2018). Climate for women in climate science: women scientists and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(9): 2060–2065.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geden, O. (2015). Policy: climate advisers must maintain integrity. Nature, 521(7550): 27–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ghaleigh, N. S. (2016). Science and climate change law – The role of the IPCC in international decision-making. In: Gray, K. R., Tarasofsky, R., and Carlarne, C. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Climate Change Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 56–71.Google Scholar
Gieryn, T. F. (1995). Boundaries of science. In: Jasanoff, S., Markle, G. E., Peterson, J. C. and Pinhch, T. (eds.), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. pp. 393–443.Google Scholar
Gieryn, T. F. (1999). Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gieryn, T. F. (2018). Truth-Spots: How Places Make People Believe. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, M. (2002). Belief and acceptance as features of groups. Protosociology, 16: 35–69.Google Scholar
Gills, B. and Morgan, J. (2020). Global climate emergency: after COP24, climate science, urgency, and the threat to humanity. Globalizations, 17(6): 885–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Girod, B., Wiek, A., Mieg, H. and Hulme, M. (2009). The evolution of the IPCC’s emissions scenarios. Environmental Science & Policy, 12: 103–118.Google Scholar
Godal, O. (2003). The IPCC’s assessment of multidisciplinary issues: the case of greenhouse gas indices. Climatic Change, 58(3): 243–249.Google Scholar
Goeminne, G. (2013). Does the climate need consensus? The politics of climate change revisited. Symploke, 20(1–2): 147–161.Google Scholar
Grundmann, R. (2006). Ozone and climate: scientific consensus and leadership. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 31(1): 73–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guardian, (2010a). US Embassy cables: US lobbied Rajendra Pachauri to help them block appointment of Iranian scientist. Guardian, 6.12.2010. Available at: www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/168194 (Accessed: 7 February 2022).Google Scholar
Guardian, (2010b). US Embassy cables: Norway supports US plan to block election of Iranian climate scientist. Guardian, 6.12.2010. Available at: www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/166258 (Accessed: 7 February 2022).Google Scholar
Guardian, (2010c). US Embassy cables: Brazil considers US plan to block election of Iranian climate scientist. Guardian, 6.12.2010. Available at: www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/166298 (Accessed: 7 February 2022).Google Scholar
Guillemot, H. (2010). Connections between climate simulations and observation in climate computer modeling. Scientist’s practices and ‘bottom-up epistemology’ lessons. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 41: 242–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guillemot, H. (2017). The necessary and inaccessible 1.5° objective: A turning point in the relations between climate science and politics? In: Aykut, S. C., Foyer, J. and Morena, E. (eds.), Globalising the Climate: COP21 and the Climatisation of Global Debates. Abingdon: Routledge. pp. 39–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gulizia, C., Langendijk, G., Huang-Lachmann, J.-T., et al. (2019). Towards a more integrated role for early career researchers in the IPCC process. Climate Change, 159: 75–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gustafsson, K. M. (2018). Producing expertise. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity & Ecosystem Services’ socialisation of young scholars. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, 15(1): 21–39.Google Scholar
Gustafsson, K. M. (2021). Expert organizations’ institutional understanding of expertise and responsibility for the creation of the next generation of experts: comparing IPCC and IPBES. Ecosystems and People, 17(1): 47–56.Google Scholar
Gustafsson, K. M. and Berg, M. (2020). Early-career scientists in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. A moderate or radical path towards a deliberative future? Environmental Sociology, 6(3): 242–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gustafsson, K. M., Berg, M., Lidskog, R. and Löfmarck, E. (2019). Intersectional boundary work in socializing new experts. The case of IPBES. Ecosystems and People, 15(1): 181–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gustafsson, K. M., Diaz-Reviriego, I. and Turnhout, E. (2020). Building capacity for the science-policy interface on biodiversity and ecosystem services: activities, fellows, outcomes, and neglected capacity building needs. Earth System Governance, 4(100050): 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gustafsson, K. M. and Lidskog, R. (2018a). Organizing international experts: IPBES’s efforts to gain epistemic authority. Environmental Sociology, 4(4): 445–456.Google Scholar
Gustafsson, K. M. and Lidskog, R. (2018b). Boundary organizations and environmental governance: performance, institutional design, and conceptual development. Climate Risk Management, 19: 1–11.Google Scholar
Guston, D. H. (2001). Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Science Technology & Human Values, 26(4): 399–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guston, D. H. (2006). On consensus and voting in science: from Asilomar to the National Toxicology Program. In: Frickel, S. and Moore, K. (eds.), The New Political Sociology of Science: Institutions, Networks and Power. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press. pp. 378–404.Google Scholar
Guterres, A. (2021). Secretary-General calls latest IPCC climate report ‘Code red for humanity’, stressing ‘irrefutable’ evidence of human influence. Available at: www.un.org/press/en/2021/sgsm20847.doc.htm (Accessed: 7 February 2022).Google Scholar
Gutiérrez, M., Johnson, S., Kulovesi, K., Muñoz, M. and Schipper, L. (2007). Summary of the 9th Session of IPCC Working Group III and 26th Session of the IPCC: 30 April– 4 May 2007, Earth Negotiations Bulletin, (321), International Institute for Sustainable Development – Reporting Services.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez, M., Kosolapova, E., Kulovesi, K. and Yamineva, Y. (2012). Summary of the 35th Session of the IPCC: 6–9 June 2012, Earth Negotiations Bulletin, 12 (547), International Institute for Sustainable Development – Reporting Services.Google Scholar
Haas, P. M. (1992). Epistemic communities and international-policy coordination – Introduction. International Organization, 46: 1–35.Google Scholar
Haas, P. M. (2004). When does power listen to truth? A constructivist approach to the policy process. Journal of European Public Policy, 11: 569–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haas, P. M. (2017). The epistemic authority of solution-oriented global environmental assessments. Environmental Science & Policy, 77: 221–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haas, P. M. and McCabe, C. (2001). Amplifiers or dampeners: international institutions and social learning in the management of global environmental risks. In: The Social Learning Group (eds.), Learning to Manage Global Environmental Risks: A Comparative History of Social Responses to Climate Change, Ozone Depletion and Acid Rain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. pp. 323–348.Google Scholar
Haas, P. M. and Stevens, C. (2011). Organized science, usable knowledge, and multilateral environmental governance. In: Lidskog, R. and Sundqvist, G. (eds.), Governing the Air: The Dynamics of Science, Policy, and Citizen Interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. pp. 125–162.Google Scholar
Haikola, S., Hansson, A. and Fridahl, M. (2019). Map-makers and navigators of politicised terrain: expert understandings of epistemological uncertainty in integrated assessment modelling of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. Futures, 114: 102472.Google Scholar
Hajer, M. A. (2012). A media storm in the world risk society: enacting scientific authority in the IPCC controversy (2009–10). Critical Policy Studies, 6(4): 452–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, J. E. (2007). Scientific reticence and sea level rise. Environmental Research Letters, 2: 024002.Google Scholar
Hansson, A., Anshelm, J., Fridal, M., and Haikola, S. (2021). Boundary work and interpretations in the IPCC review process of the role of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) in limiting global warming to 1.5°C. Frontiers in Climate, 3: 643224.Google Scholar
Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3): 575–599.Google Scholar
Harold, J., Lorenzoni, I., Shipley, T. F. and Coventry, K. R. (2016). Cognitive and psychological science insights to improve climate change data visualization. Nature Climate Change, 6(12): 1080–1089.Google Scholar
Harold, J., Lorenzoni, I., Shipley, T. F. and Coventry, K. R. (2020). Communication of IPCC visuals: IPCC authors’ views and assessments of visual complexity. Climatic Change, 158: 255–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, K. C. (2003). Research from the boundary layer: civilian leadership, military funding and the development of Numerical Weather Prediction (1946–55). Social Studies of Science, 33(5): 667–696.Google Scholar
Haunschild, R., Bornmann, L. and Marx, W. (2016). Climate change research in view of bibliometrics. PLoS One, 11(7): e0160393.Google Scholar
Hausfather, Z. and Peters, G. (2020). Emissions – the ‘business as usual’ story is misleading. Nature, 577: 618–620.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Havstad, J. C. and Brown, M. J. (2017). Neutrality, relevance, prescription, and the IPCC. Public Affairs Quarterly, 31(4): 303–324.Google Scholar
Hays, S. P. (1999). Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency: The Progressive Conservation Movement, 1890–1920. No. 40. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hecht, A. D. and Tirpak, D. (1995). Framework agreement on climate change: a scientific and policy history. Climatic Change, (29): 371–402.Google Scholar
Hermansen, E. A. T., Lahn, B., Sundqvist, G. and Øye, E. (2021). Post-Paris policy relevance: lessons from the IPCC SR15 process. Climatic Change, 169(7): 1–18.Google Scholar
Hewitson, B., Waagsaether, K., Wohland, J., Kloppers, K. and Kara, T. (2017). Climate information websites: an evolving landscape. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 8: e470.Google Scholar
Heymann, M. (2010). The evolution of climate ideas and knowledge. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1(4): 581–597.Google Scholar
Heymann, M. and Hundebol, N. R. (2017). From heuristic to predictive. Making climate models into political instruments. In: Heymann, M., Gramelsberger, G. and Mahony, M. (eds.), Culture of Prediction in Atmospheric and Climate Science. Epistemic and Cultural Shifts in Computer-Based Modelling and Simulation. Abingdon: Routledge. pp. 120–136.Google Scholar
Hill, R., Adem, Ç., Alangui, W. V., et al. (2020). Working with indigenous, local and scientific knowledge in assessments of nature and nature’s linkages with people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 43: 8–20.Google Scholar
Hiramatsu, A., Mimura, N. and Sumi, A. (2008). A mapping of global warming research based on IPCC AR4. Sustainability Science, 3(2): 201–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ho-Lem, C., Zerriffi, H. and Kandlikar, M. (2011). Who participates in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and why: a quantitative assessment of the national representation of authors in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Global Environmental Change, 21(4): 1308–1317.Google Scholar
Hoppe, I. and Rödder, S. (2019). Speaking with one voice for climate science – climate researchers’ opinion on the consensus policy of the IPCC. Journal of Science Communication, 18(03): a04.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoppe, R. (1999). Policy analysis, science and politics: from ‘speaking truth to power’ to ‘making sense together’. Science and Public Policy, 26: 201–210.Google Scholar
Hoppe, R., Wesselink, A. and Cairns, R. (2013). Lost in the problem: the role of boundary organisations in the governance of climate change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 4: 283–300.Google Scholar
Houghton, J. T. (2007). An overview of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) and its process of science assessment. In: Hester, R. E. and Harrison, R. M. (eds.), Global Environmental Change. London: Royal Society of Chemistry. pp. 1–20.Google Scholar
Houghton, J. T. (2008). Madrid 1995: Diagnosing climate change. Nature, 455(7214): 737–738.Google Scholar
House of Commons (2010). The Disclosure of Climate Data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. London: Science and Technology Committee. Available at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/38703.htmGoogle Scholar
Hughes, H. R. (2012). Practices of Power and Knowledge in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Unpublished PhD thesis. Department of International Politics: Aberystwyth University, Wales.Google Scholar
Hughes, H. R. (2015). Bourdieu and the IPCC’s symbolic power. Global Environmental Politics, 15: 85–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, H. R. and Paterson, M. (2017). Narrowing the climate field: the symbolic power of authors in the IPCC’s assessment of mitigation. Review of Policy Research, 34(6): 744–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, H. R. and Vadrot, A. B. M. (2019). IPBES and the struggle over biocultural diversity. Global Environmental Politics, 19(2): 14–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulme, M. (2009). Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulme, M. (2010). Problems with making and governing global kinds of knowledge. Global Environmental Change, 20(4): 558–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulme, M. (2011a). Reducing the future to climate: a story of climate determinism and reductionism. Osiris, 26(1): 245–266.Google Scholar
Hulme, M. (2013). Lessons from the IPCC: do scientific assessments need to be consensual to be authoritative? In: Doubleday, R. and Wilsdon, J. (eds.), Future Directions for Scientific Advice in Whitehall. Cambridge: Centre for Science and Policy. pp. 142–147.Google Scholar
Hulme, M. (2016). 1.5 °C and climate research after the Paris Agreement. Nature Climate Change, 6(3): 222–224.Google Scholar
Hulme, M. (2018). ‘Gaps’ in climate change knowledge: Do they exist? Can they be filled? Environmental Humanities, 10(1): 330–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulme, M. (2019). Climate emergency politics is dangerous. Issues in Science and Technology, 36(1): 23–25.Google Scholar
Hulme, M., Lidskog, R., White, J. M. and Standring, A. (2020). Social scientific knowledge in times of crisis: what climate change can learn from coronavirus (and vice versa)? Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 11: e656.Google Scholar
Hulme, M. and Mahony, M. (2010). Climate change: what do we know about the IPCC? Progress in Physical Geography, 34(5): 705–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulme, M., Zorita, E., Stocker, T. F., Price, J., and Christy, J. R. (2010). IPCC: cherish it, tweak it or scrap it? Nature, (463): 730–732.Google ScholarPubMed
IAC [InterAcademy Council] (2010). Climate Change Assessments: Review of the Processes and Procedures of the IPCC. Amsterdam, Netherlands. Available at: https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/IAC_report/IAC%20Report.pdf (Accessed: 15 January 2022).Google Scholar
IAMC (2017). IAMC Website, Scenario Working Group presentation. Available at: https://web.archive.org/web/20160819202205/http://www.globalchange.umd.edu/iamc/scientific-working-groups/scenarios/ (Accessed: 8 February 2022).Google Scholar
IEA [International Energy Agency] (2021). World Energy Outlook 2021. www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IISD (2014). Summary of the 10th Session of Working Group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Thirty-Eighth Session of the IPCC: 25-29 March 2014. Earth Negotiations Bulletin, 12(596): 1–20.Google Scholar
Inuit Circumpolar Council (2013). Application of Indigenous Knowledge in the Arctic Council. Available at: https://iccalaska.org/wp-icc/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Application-of-IK-in-the-Arctic-Council.pdf (Accessed: 8 February 2022).Google Scholar
Inuit Circumpolar Council (2021). Ethical and Equitable Engagement Synthesis Report. Available at: www.inuitcircumpolar.com/project/icc-ethical-and-equitable-engagement-synthesis-report/ (Accessed: 8 February 2022).Google Scholar
Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (2018). National Inuit Strategy on Research. Ottawa. Available at: www.itk.ca (Accessed: 11 August 2020).Google Scholar
IPCC (1988). Report of the First Session of the WMO/UNEP IPCC, 9-11 November 1988. Geneva.Google Scholar
IPCC (1990a). Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment. Houghton, J. T., Jenkins, G. J. and Ephraums, J. J. (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
IPCC (1990b). Climate Change: The IPCC Response Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
IPCC (1991). IPCC-7. Report of the 5th Session of the WMO/UNEP Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (Geneva, 13–15 March 1991). pp. 22–23.Google Scholar
IPCC (1996). Climate Change 1995 – The Science of Climate Change: Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Houghton, J. T., Meiro Filho, L. G., Callendar, B. A., et al. (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
IPCC (2003). Proposal for handling emissions scenarios related issues in AR4. Annex 5 in: Report of the 21st Session of the IPCC (Vienna, 3 and 6–7 November 2003).Google Scholar
IPCC (2005). Guidance Notes for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on Addressing Uncertainties. Geneva: IPCC. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-uncertaintyguidancenote-1.pdf (Access 8 February 2022).Google Scholar
IPCC (2006a). Policy and Process for Admitting Observer Organizations (adopted in 2006 and last amended in 2012). Geneva: IPCC. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/09/ipcc-principles-observer-org-1.pdf (Accessed: 25 January 2022).Google Scholar
IPCC (2006b). Further work of the IPCC on emission scenarios. Annex 4 in: Report of the 25th Session of the IPCC (Port Louis, Mauritius, 26-28 April 2006). Available at: www.ipcc.ch/meeting-doc/25th-session-of-the-ipcc/Google Scholar
IPCC (2009a). Use of Funds from The Nobel Peace Prize. IPCC-XXX/Doc.8 in: Report of the 30th Session of the IPCC. Antalya, Turkey, 21–23 April 2009. Geneva: IPCC.Google Scholar
IPCC (2009b). Improving Participation of Developing/EIT Countries in the IPCC: Summary and Recommendations. IPCC-XXXI/Doc.11 in: Report of the 31st Session of the IPCC. Geneva: IPCC. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/meeting-doc/ipcc-31-and-plenary-sessions-of-the-three-ipcc-working-groups/ (Accessed: 8 February 2022).Google Scholar
IPCC (2009c). Report of the 30th Session of the IPCC (Antalya, Turkey, 21–23 April 2009), Geneva: IPCC. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/final_report_30.pdf (Accessed: 25 January 2022).Google Scholar
IPCC (2011). Decisions Taken with Respect to the Review of IPCC Processes and Procedures Communications Strategy (Report of the 33rd Session of the IPCC, 10–13 May 2011, Abu Dhabi). Geneva: IPCC. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/doc13_p33_review_tg_proposal_communications_strategy.pdf (Accessed: 30 July 2021).Google Scholar
IPCC (2012a). Progress Report and Planning for the Next Round of the Scholarship Programme. IPCC-XXXV/Doc. 8 in: Report of the 35th Session of the IPCC. Geneva, Switzerland, June 6-9, 2012. Geneva: IPCC.Google Scholar
IPCC (2012b). Workshop Report of the IPCC Workshop on Socio-economic Scenarios. IPCC Working Group III Technical Support Unit, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact and Research, Potsdam Germany. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/publication/ipcc-workshop-on-socio-economic-scenarios/ (Accessed: 8 February 2022).Google Scholar
IPCC (2013a). Procedures for the Preparation, Review, Acceptance, Adoption, Approval and Publication of IPCC Reports. Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work. Last amended 2013. Geneva: IPCC. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/09/ipcc-principles-appendix-a-final.pdf (Accessed: 6 February 2022).Google Scholar
IPCC (2013b). About the IPCC: Organization. (Updated). Geneva: IPCC. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml#.UcLdOvnqmSo (Accessed: 8 February 2022).Google Scholar
IPCC (2014a). Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madrugada, R., Sokona, Y., et al. (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
IPCC (2014b). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Pachauri, R. K. and Meyer, L. A. (eds.). Geneva: IPCC. www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/Google Scholar
IPCC (2015a). Assessing Transformation Pathways. Chapter 6 in: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madrugada, R., Sokona, Y., et al. (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 413–510. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415416 (Accessed: 30 December 2020).Google Scholar
IPCC (2015b). IPCC Scholarship Programme. IPCC-XLII/INF. 10 in Report of the 42nd Session of the IPCC. Dubrovnik, Croatia, 5–8 October 2015. Geneva: IPCC.Google Scholar
IPCC (2016a). IPCC Scholarship Programme. IPCC-XLIV/Doc. 10 in Report of the 44th Session of the IPCC. Bangkok, Thailand, 17–20 October 2016. Geneva: IPCC.Google Scholar
IPCC (2016b). Meeting Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Expert Meeting on Communication. Lynn, J., Araya, M., Christophersen, Ø., et al. (eds.). Geneva: IPCC/WMO.Google Scholar
IPCC (2016c). Review of the IPCC Communication Strategy. IPCC-XLIV/Doc.6. 44th Session of the IPCC, Bangkok, Thailand. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/apps/eventmanager/documents/40/200920160710-Doc.6_ReviewComsStrat.pdf (Accessed: 12 February 2022).Google Scholar
IPCC (2016d). Expert Meeting on the Future of the Task Group on Data and Scenario Support for Impacts and Climate Analysis (TGICA). Shongwe, M., Tall, A., Wratt, D., et al. (eds.). WMO. Geneva: Switzerland. Available at: https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/EMR_TGICA_Future.pdf (Accessed: 6 November 2021).Google Scholar
IPCC (2017a). Report of the 46th Session of the IPCC. Montreal, Canada, 6–10 September, 2017. Geneva: IPCC. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/meeting-doc/ipcc-46/ (Accessed: 22 February 2022).Google Scholar
IPCC (2017b). Meeting Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Expert Meeting on Mitigation, Sustainability and Climate Stabilization Scenarios. London: IPCC Working Group III Technical Support Unit, Imperial College London.Google Scholar
IPCC (2017c). Working Group I Contribution to the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) Background information. IPCC Working Group I – 13th Session. Montreal, 7–8 September 2017. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/04/040820170312-WGI_inf1_background_information.pdf (Accessed: 6 November 2021).Google Scholar
IPCC (2017d). Chapter Outline of the Working Group II Contribution to the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6). Decision. As Adopted by the Panel at the 46th Session of the IPCC. Montreal, Canada, 6–10 September 2017. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/AR6_WGII_outlines_P46.pdf (Accessed: 6 November 2021).Google Scholar
IPCC (2018a). Global Warming of 1.5 C. An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5 C above Pre-Industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways. Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pörtner, H.-O., et al. (eds.). Geneva: IPCC. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ (Accessed: 12 February 2022).Google Scholar
IPCC (2018b). IPCC Factsheet: How Does the IPCC Select its Authors? Geneva: IPCC. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/FS_select_authors.pdf (Accessed: 29 October 2021).Google Scholar
IPCC (2018c). Report of the 48th Session of the IPCC. Incheon, Republic of Korea, 1–5 October 2018. Geneva: IPCC. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/12/final_report_p48.pdf (Accessed: 1 March 2022).Google Scholar
IPCC (2018d). Report of the 47th Session of the IPCC. Paris, France, 13–16 March 2018. Geneva: IPCC. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/event/47th-session-of-the-ipcc/ (Accessed: 8 February 2022).Google Scholar
IPCC (2018e). Proposed Terms of Reference for the Task Group on the Organization of the Future Work of the IPCC in Light of the Global Stocktake. Geneva: IPCC. Available at: https://archive.ipcc.ch/organization/gst.shtml (Accessed: 25 January 2022).Google Scholar
IPCC (2018f). Report by the Ad Hoc Task Force on the Future of the Task Group on Data and Scenario Support for Impact and Climate Analysis. Prepared for: Forty-Seventh Session of the IPCC, Paris, France, 13–16 March 2018. IPCC-XLVII/Doc. 9. Available at: https://archive.ipcc.ch/apps/eventmanager/documents/49/020320180441-Doc.%209-ATF-TGICA.pdf (Accessed: 6 November 2021).Google Scholar
IPCC (2018g). Expert Meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on Assessing Climate Information for Regions. Moufouma-Okia, W., Masson-Delmotte, V., Pörtner, H.-O., et al. (eds.), IPCC Working Group I Technical Support Unit, Université Paris Saclay, Saint Aubin: France. Available at: https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/AR6_WGI_EM_Regions.pdf (Accessed: 6 November 2021).Google Scholar
IPCC (2019a). Information for participants. In: Report of the 50th Session of the IPCC. Geneva, Switzerland WMO headquarters August 2-6, 2019. Geneva: IPCC. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/06/IPCC-50.-INF-NOTE-Geneva_V5.pdf (Accessed: 15 January 2022).Google Scholar
IPCC (2019b). Report from the Task Group on Gender. Geneva: IPCC. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/01/110520190810-Doc.-10-Rev.1TG-Gender.pdf (Accessed: 29 October 2021).Google Scholar
IPCC (2019c). Report of the 49th Session of the IPCC. Kyoto, Japan, 8–12 May 2019. Geneva: IPCC.Google Scholar
IPCC (2019d). IPCC Scholarship Programme. IPCC-XLIX/Doc. 9, Rev.1 In: Report of the 49th Session of the IPCC. Kyoto, Japan, 8–12 May 2019. Geneva: IPCC.Google Scholar
IPCC (2019e). Progress report of the task group on the organization of the future work of the IPCC in light of the global stocktake. IPCC-XLIX/INF. 6, Agenda Item: 6.2 in: Report of the 49th Session of the IPCC. Geneva: IPCC. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/01/100420191037-INF6Stocktake.pdf (Accessed: 25 January 2022).Google Scholar
IPCC (2019f). Technical Summary. In: Pörtner, H. O., Roberts, D. C., Masson-Delmotte, V., et al., IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
IPCC (2019g). Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems. Shukla, P. R., Skea, J., Calvo Buendia, E., et al. (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
IPCC (2020a). What Is an Expert Reviewer of IPCC Reports? Geneva: IPCC. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/2020/12/04/what-is-an-expert-reviewer-of-ipcc-reports/ (Accessed: 5 January 2022).Google Scholar
IPCC (2020b). The IPCC’s First Virtual Lead Author Meeting: An Evaluation by the Technical Support Unit of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2020/07/IPCC-WG-III-TSU-Report-Evaluating_the_IPCCs_first_Virtual_Lead_Author_Meeting.pdf (Accessed: 15 January 2022).Google Scholar
IPCC (2021a). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., et al. (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
IPCC (2021b). About the IPCC. Geneva: IPCC. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/about/ (Accessed: 22 June 2021).Google Scholar
IPCC (2021c). About the Scholarship Programme. Geneva: IPCC. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/about/scholarship/ (Accessed: 30 December 2021).Google Scholar
IPCC (2021d). IPCC WGI Interactive Atlas. Geneva: IPCC. Available at: https://interactive-atlas.ipcc.ch/ (Accessed: 8 February 2022).Google Scholar
IPCC (2021e). Review of the IPCC Communications Strategy. IPCC-LIII(bis)/INF. 12 in: Report of the 53rd Session of the IPCC. Electronic Session, 22–26 March 2021. Geneva: IPCC. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/meeting-doc/ipcc-53-bis/ (Accessed: 8 February 2022).Google Scholar
IPCC (2021f). IPCC Communications Strategy Update. IPCC-LIII(bis)/INF. 13 in: Report of the 53rd Session of the IPCC. Electronic Session, 22–26 March 2021. Geneva: IPCC. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/meeting-doc/ipcc-53-bis/ (Accessed: 8 February 2022).Google Scholar
IPCC (2022). Summary for Policymakers. In: Pörtner, H. O., et al. (eds.), Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–35.Google Scholar
IPCC (n.d.(a)). How Does the IPCC Work? Geneva: IPCC. Available at: https://archive.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_structure.shtml (Accessed: 15 January 2022).Google Scholar
IPCC (n.d.(b)). IPCC Focal Points. Geneva: IPCC. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/apps/contact/interface/focalpoints.php (Accessed: 19 January 2022).Google Scholar
Jabbour, J. and Flachsland, C. (2017). 40 years of global environmental assessments: a retrospective analysis. Environmental Science & Policy, 77: 193–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janzwood, S. (2020). Confident, likely, or both? The implementation of the uncertainty language framework in IPCC Special Reports. Climatic Change, 162(3): 1655–1675.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (1987). Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science. Social Studies of Science, 17: 195–230.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (1990). The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (ed.) (2004). States of Knowledge: Co-production of Science and the Social Order. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (2005). Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (2010b). A new climate for society. Theory, Culture & Society, 27(2–3): 233–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (2011a). Constitutional moments in governing science and technology. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17: 621–638. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9302-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (2011b). 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. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 129–143.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (2019). Controversy studies. In: Ritzer, G. and Rojek, C. (eds.), The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. and Kim, S.-H. (eds.) (2015). Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, J. T., Howitt, R., Cajete, G., et al. (2016). Weaving Indigenous and sustainability sciences to diversify our methods. Sustainability Science, 11: 1–11.Google Scholar
Jomisko, R. L. (2013). Harry’s code: an interview with Harry Collins. Nordic Journal of Science and Technology Studies, 1(1): 25–29.Google Scholar
Jordan, A., Huitema, D., Van Asselt, H. and Forster, J. (eds.) (2018). Governing Climate Change: Polycentricity in Action? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kanerva, J. and Krizsán, A. (2021). Discouraging climate action through implicit argumentation: an analysis of linguistic polyphony in the Summary for Policymakers by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Discourse & Communication, 15(6): 609–628.Google Scholar
Kear, M. (2016). The new prometheans: technological optimism in climate change mitigation modelling. Environmental Values, 25(1): 7–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keohane, R. O. (2015). The global politics of climate change: challenge for political science. PS: Political Science & Politics, 48(1): 19–26.Google Scholar
Keppo, I., Butnar, I., Bauer, N., et al. (2021). Exploring the possibility space: taking stock of the diverse capabilities and gaps in integrated assessment models. Environmental Research Letters, 16: 053006.Google Scholar
Knol, A. B., Slottje, P., van der Sluijs, J. P., et al. (2010). The use of expert elicitation in environmental health impact assessment: a seven step procedure. Environmental Health, 9(19):1–16.Google Scholar
Knorr Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic Cultures: How the Science Makes Knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knutti, R., Masson, D. and Gettelman, A. (2013). Climate model genealogy: generation CMIP5 and how we got there. Geophysical Research Letters, 40(6): 1194–1199.Google Scholar
Knutti, R., Rogelj, J., Sedláček, J. and Fischer, E. M. (2016). A scientific critique of the two-degree climate change target. Nature Geoscience, 9(1): 13–18.Google Scholar
Kouw, M. and Petersen, A. (2018). Diplomacy in action: Latourian politics and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Science and Technology Studies, 31(1): 52–68.Google Scholar
Kovach, M. (2009). Indigenous Methodologies: Characteristics, Conversations and Contexts. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Kowarsch, M., Garardm, J., Riousset, P., et al. (2016). Scientific assessments to facilitate deliberative policy learning. Palgrave Communications, 2: 16092.Google Scholar
Kowarsch, M. and Jabbour, J. (2017). Solution-oriented global environmental assessments: opportunities and challenges. Environmental Science & Policy, 77: 187–192.Google Scholar
Kowarsch, M., Jabbour, J., Flaschland, C., et al. (2017). A road map for global environmental assessments. Nature Climate Change, 7(6): 379–382.Google Scholar
Kunelius, R., Eide, E., Tegelberg, M. and Yagodin, D. (eds.) (2017). Media and Global Climate Knowledge: Journalism and the IPCC. New York: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuramochi, T., Roelfsema, M., Hasu, A., et al. (2020). Beyond national climate action: the impact of region, city, and business commitments on global greenhouse gas emissions. Climate Policy, 20(3): 275–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lahn, B. (2018). In the light of equity and science: scientific expertise and climate justice after Paris. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 18: 29–43.Google Scholar
Lahn, B. (2021). Changing climate change: the carbon budget and the modifying-work of the IPCC. Social Studies of Science, 51(1): 3–27.Google Scholar
Lahn, B. and Sundqvist, G. (2017). Science as a ‘fixed point’? Quantification and boundary objects in international climate politics. Environmental Science & Policy, 67: 8–15.Google Scholar
Lahsen, M. (1999). The detection and attribution of conspiracies: the controversy over Chapter 8. Chapter 5 in: Marcus, G. E. (ed.), Paranoia within Reason: A Casebook on Conspiracy as Explanation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 111–136.Google Scholar
Lahsen, M. (2009). A science–policy interface in the global south: the politics of carbon sinks and science in Brazil. Climatic Change, 97(3): 339–372.Google Scholar
Lahsen, M. (2016). Trust through participation? Problems of knowledge in climate decision making. In: Pettinger, M. E. (ed.), The Social Construction of Climate Change: Power, Knowledge, Norms, Discourses. Abingdon: Routledge. pp. 197–220.Google Scholar
Lahsen, M., Couto, G. D. and Lorenzoni, I. (2020). When climate change is not blamed: the politics of disaster attribution in international perspective. Climatic Change, 158: 213–233.Google Scholar
Laidler, G. J., Hirose, T., Kapfer, M., Ikummaq, T., Joamie, E., and Elee, P. (2011). Evaluating the Floe Edge Service: how well can SAR imagery address Inuit community concerns around sea ice change and travel safety? The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe Canadien, 55(1): 91–107.Google Scholar
Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lawler, A. (2002). Pachauri defeats Watson in new chapter for global panel. Science, 296 (5568): 632.Google Scholar
Leclerc, O. (2009). Les règles de production des énoncés au sein du Groupe d’experts intergouvernemental sur l’évolution du climat. In: R. Encinas de Muñagorri, (ed.), Expertise et Gouvernance du Changement Climatique. Paris: LGDJ. pp. 59–92.Google Scholar
Leggett, J., Pepper, W. J. and Wart, R. J. (1992). Emissions scenarios for IPCC: an update. In: Houghton, J. T., Callander, B. A. and Varney, S. K. (eds.), Climate Change 1992. The Supplementary Report to the IPCC Scientific Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lenhard, J. and Winsberg, E. (2010). Holism, entrenchment, and the future of climate model pluralism. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 41(3): 253–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lidskog, R. and Sundqvist, G. (2015). When does science matter? International relations meets science and technology studies. Global Environmental Politics. 15(1): 1–20.Google Scholar
Lim, M., Lynch, A. J., Fernandez-Llamazares, A., et al. (2017). Early-career experts essential for planetary sustainability. Current Opinion Environmental Sustainability, 29: 151e157.Google Scholar
Limoges, C. (1993). Expert knowledge and decision-making in controversy contexts. Public Understanding of Science, 2: 417–426.Google Scholar
Linnér, B.-O. and Wibeck, V. (2019). Sustainability Transformations: Agents and Drivers Across Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Liverman, D., von Hedemann, N., Nying’uro, P., et al. (2022). Survey of gender bias in the IPCC. Nature, 602: 30–32.Google Scholar
Livingstone, D. (2003). Putting Science in Its Place: Geographies of Scientific Knowledge. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Livingston, J. E., Lövbrand, E. and Alkan Olsson, J. (2018). From climates multiple to climate singular: maintaining policy-relevance in the IPCC synthesis report. Environmental Science & Policy, 90: 83–90.Google Scholar
Livingston, J. E. and Rummukainen, M. (2020). Taking science by surprise: the knowledge politics of the IPCC special report on 1.5 degrees. Environmental Science & Policy, 112: 10–16.Google Scholar
Loreau, M., Oteng-Yeboah, A., Orroyo, M. T. K., et al. (2006). Diversity without representation. Nature, 442(7100): 245–246.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lövbrand, E. (2004). Bridging political expectations and scientific limitations in climate risk management – on the uncertain effects of international carbon sink policies. Climatic Change, 67(2–3): 449–460.Google Scholar
Lövbrand, E. (2009). Revisiting the politics of expertise in light of the Kyoto negotiations on land use change and forestry. Forest Policy and Economics, 11(5–6): 404–412.Google Scholar
Lövbrand, E., Beck, S., Chilvers, J., et al. (2015). Who speaks for the future of Earth? How critical social science can extend the conversation on the Anthropocene. Global Environmental Change, 32: 211–218.Google Scholar
Low, S. and Schäfer, S. (2020). Is bio-energy carbon capture and storage (BECCS) feasible? The contested authority of integrated assessment modeling. Energy Research and Social Science, 60: 101326.Google Scholar
Lunde, L. (1991). Science or Politics in the Global Greenhouse? The Development Towards Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. Lysaker: Fridtjof Nansen Institute.Google ScholarPubMed
Lynas, M. (2011). Conflicted roles over renewables. Nature Climate Change, 1(8): 228–229.Google Scholar
Lynn, J. and Peeva, N. (2021). Communications in the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report cycle. Climatic Change, 169: 18.Google Scholar
Maas, T. Y., Montana, J., van der Hel, S., et al. (2021). Effectively empowering: a different look at bolstering the effectiveness of global environmental assessments. Environmental Science & Policy, 123: 210–219.Google Scholar
Mach, K. J. and Field, C. B. (2017). Toward the next generation of assessment. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 42: 569–597.Google Scholar
Mach, K. J., Mastrandrea, M. D., Freeman, P. T., et al. (2017). Unleashing expert judgment in assessment. Global Environmental Change, 44: 1–14.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, D. A. (2006). An Engine, Not a Camera: How Financial Models Shape Markets. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, D. (2009). Making things the same: gases, emission rights and the politics of carbon markets. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(3–4): 440–455.Google Scholar
Mahony, M. (2013). Boundary spaces: science, politics and the epistemic geographies of climate change in Copenhagen, 2009. Geoforum, 49: 29–39.Google Scholar
Mahony, M. (2014a). The IPCC and the geographies of credibility. History of Meteorology, 6: 95–112.Google Scholar
Mahony, M. (2014b). The predictive state: science, territory and the future of the Indian climate. Social Studies of Science, 44(1): 109–133.Google Scholar
Mahony, M. (2015). Climate change and the geographies of objectivity: the case of the IPCC’s burning embers diagram. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 40: 153–167.Google Scholar
Mahony, M. and Hulme, M. (2018). Epistemic geographies of climate change: science, space and politics. Progress in Human Geography, 42(3): 395–424.Google Scholar
Maldonado, J., Bennett, T. M. B., Chief, K., et al. (2016). Engagement with indigenous peoples and honoring traditional knowledge systems. Climatic Change, 135: 111–126.Google Scholar
Malone, E. L. and Rayner, S. (2001). Role of the research standpoint in integrating global-scale and local-scale research. Climate Research, 19(2): 173–178.Google Scholar
Manning, M. R., Petit, M., Easterling, D., et al. (2004). IPCC Workshop on Describing Scientific Uncertainties in Climate Change to Support Analysis of Risk and of Options. Geneva: IPCC. Available at: https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/ipcc-workshop-2004-may.pdf (Accessed: 12 February 2022).Google Scholar
Marres, N. (2018). Why we can’t have our facts back. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society, 4: 423–443.Google Scholar
Martinez, J. (2020). The great smog of London. Encyclopaedia Britannica. Available at: www.britannica.com/event/Great-Smog-of-London (Accessed: 16 June 2021).Google Scholar
Masood, E. and Ochert, A. (1995). UN climate change report turns up the heat. Nature, 378: 119.Google Scholar
Mastrandrea, M. D., Field, C. B., Stocker, T. F., et al. (2010). Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties. Geneva: IPCC. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2017/08/AR5_Uncertainty_Guidance_Note.pdf (Accessed: 12 February 2022).Google Scholar
Mastrandrea, M. D. and Mach, K. J. (2011). Treatment of uncertainties in IPCC Assessment Reports: past approaches and considerations for the Fifth Assessment Report. Climatic Change, 108(4): 659–673.Google Scholar
Mastrandrea, M. D., Mach, K. J., Plattner, G. K., et al. (2011). The IPCC AR5 guidance note on consistent treatment of uncertainties: a common approach across the working groups. Climatic Change, 108(4): 675–691.Google Scholar
McCright, A. M. and Dunlap, R. E. (2010). Anti-reflexivity the American conservative movement’s success in undermining climate science and policy. Theory Culture & Society, 27: 100–133.Google Scholar
McIntyre, S. and McKitrick, R. (2005). The M&M critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere climate index: update and implications. Energy & Environment, 16(1): 69–100.Google Scholar
McMahon, R., Stauffacher, M. and Knutti, R. (2015). The unseen uncertainties in climate change: reviewing comprehension of an IPCC scenario graph. Climatic Change, 133(2): 141–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMahon, R., Stauffacher, M. and Knutti, R. (2016). The scientific veneer of IPCC visuals, Climatic Change, 138 (3–4): 369–381.Google Scholar
Medin, D. L. and Lee, C. D. (2012). Presidential column: diversity makes better science. APS. Association for Psychological Science. Available at: www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2012/may-june-12/diversity-makes-better-science.html (Accessed: 29 October 2021).Google Scholar
Merton, R. K. (1948). The self-fulfilling prophecy. The Antioch Review, 8(2): 193–210.Google Scholar
Miguel, J., Mahony, M., and Monteiro, M (2019). A ‘geopolítica infraestrutural’ do conhecimento climático: o Modelo Brasileiro do Sistema Terrestre e a divisão Norte-Sul do conhecimento. Sociologias, 21: 44–75.Google Scholar
Miller, B. (2013). When is a consensus knowledge-based? Distinguishing shared knowledge from mere agreement. Synthese, 190(7): 1293–1316.Google Scholar
Miller, C. A. (2001a). Scientific internationalism in American foreign policy: The case of meteorology. In: Miller, C. A. and Edwards, P. N. (eds.), Changing the Atmosphere: Expert Knowledge and Environmental Governance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. pp. 167–218.Google Scholar
Miller, C. A. (2001b). Hybrid management: boundary organizations, science policy, and environmental governance in the climate regime. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 4(26): 478–500.Google Scholar
Miller, C. A. (2004). Climate science and the making of a global political order. In: Jasanoff, S. (ed.), States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and Social Order. London: Routledge. pp. 46–66.Google Scholar
Miller, C. A. (2008). Civic epistemologies: constituting knowledge and order in political communities. Sociology Compass, 2(6): 1896–1919.Google Scholar
Miller, C. A. (2009). Epistemic constitutionalism in international governance: the case of climate change. In: Heazle, M., Griffiths, M. and Conley, T. (eds.), Foreign Policy Challenges in the 21st Century. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. pp. 141–163.Google Scholar
Miller, C. A. (2015a). Globalizing security: science and the transformation of contemporary political imagination. In: Jasanoff, S. and Kim, S. H. (eds.), Dreamscapes of Modernity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 277–299.Google Scholar
Miller, C. A. (2015b). Knowledge and democracy: the epistemics of self-governance. In: Hilgartner, S., Miller, C. and Hagendijk, R. (eds.), Science and Democracy. London: Routledge. pp. 216–237.Google Scholar
Miller, C. A. and Edwards, P. N. (eds.) (2001). Changing the Atmosphere: Expert Knowledge and Environmental Governance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Miller, C. A. and Muñoz-Erickson, T. A. (2018). Designing Knowledge. Tempe: Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes.Google Scholar
Minx, J. C., Callaghan, M., Lamb, W. F., Garard, J., and Edenhofer, O. (2017). Learning about climate change solutions in the IPCC and beyond. Environmental Science & Policy, 77: 252–259.Google Scholar
Monteiro, M., Seixas, S., and Vieira, S. (2014). The politics of Amazonian deforestation: environmental policy and climate change knowledge. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 5: 689–701.Google Scholar
Moran, G. (1998). Silencing Scientists and Scholars in Other Fields: Power, Paradigm Controls, Peer Review, and Scholarly Communication. Greenwich, CT: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
Morelli, A., Johansen, T. G., Pidcock, R., et al. (2021). Co-designing engaging and accessible data visualisations: a case study of the IPCC reports. Climatic Change, 168: 26.Google Scholar
Morseletto, P., Biermann, F. and Pattberg, P. (2017). Governing by targets: reductio ad unum and evolution of the two-degree climate target. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 17(5): 655–676.Google Scholar
Moss, R. H. (1995). The IPCC: policy relevant not driven: scientific assessment. Global Environmental Change, 5: 171–174.Google Scholar
Moss, R. H., Babiker, M., Brinkman, S., et al. (2008). Towards New Scenarios for Analysis of Emissions, Climate Change, Impacts, and Response Strategies. Geneva: IPCC.Google Scholar
Moss, R. H., Edmonds, J. A., Hibbard, K. A., et al. (2010). The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment. Nature, 463(7282): 747–756.Google Scholar
Moss, R. H. and Schneider, S. (2000). Uncertainties. In: Pachauri, R., Taniguchi, T. and Tanaka, K. (eds.), Guidance Papers on the Cross Cutting Issues of the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC. Geneva: IPCC. pp. 33–52.Google Scholar
Najam, A., Rahman, A. A., Huq, S., and Sokona, Y. (2003). Integrating sustainable development into the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Policy, 3(S1): S9–S17.Google Scholar
Nakicenovic, N., Alcamo, J., Davis, G., et al. (2000). Special Report on Emissions Scenarios. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nalau, J., Becken, S., Schliephack, J., et al. (2018). The role of indigenous and traditional knowledge in ecosystem-based adaptation: a review of the literature and case studies from the Pacific Islands. Weather, Climate, and Society, 10(4): 851–865.Google Scholar
National Grid (2021). Future Energy Scenarios 2021. London. Available at: www.nationalgrideso.com/document/202851/download (Accessed: 21 July 2021).Google Scholar
Nerlich, N. and Jaspal, R. (2014). Images of extreme weather: symbolising human responses to climate change. Science as Culture, 23(2): 253–276.Google Scholar
Newell, P. (2006). Climate for Change: Non-state Actors and the Global Politics of the Greenhouse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nightingale, A. J., Eriksen, S., Taylor, M., et al. (2020). Beyond technical fixes: climate solutions and the great derangement. Climate and Development, 12(4): 343–352.Google Scholar
Nocke, T. (2014). Images for data analysis: the role of visualisation in climate research processes. In: Schneider, B. and Nocke, T. (eds.), Image Politics of Climate Change: Visualizations, Imaginations, Documentations. New York: Columbia University Press. pp. 54–77.Google Scholar
Nordlund, G. (2008). Futures research and the IPCC assessment study on the effects of climate change. Futures, 40(10): 873–876.Google Scholar
NRC [National Research Council] (1979). Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12181.Google Scholar
OAS [Organization of American States] (2016). American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Washington, DC: Organisation of American States.Google Scholar
O’Brien, K. (2012). Global environmental change II: from adaptation to deliberative transformation. Progress in Human Geography, 36(5): 667–676.Google Scholar
O’Neill, B. C., Carter, T., Ebi, K., et al. (2020). Achievements and needs for the climate change scenario framework. Nature Climate Change, 10(12): 1074–1084.Google Scholar
O’Neill, B. C., Kriegler, E., Riahi, K., et al. (2014). A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of shared socioeconomic pathways. Climatic Change, 122: 387–400.Google Scholar
O’Neill, B. C., Oppenheimer, M., Warren, R., et al. (2017). IPCC reasons for concern regarding climate change risks. Nature Climate Change, 7(1): 28–37.Google Scholar
O’Neill, B. C., Tebaldi, C., van Vuuren, D. P., et al. (2016). The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6. Geoscientific Model Development, 9: 3461–3482.Google Scholar
O’Neill, S. J., Hulme, M., Turnpenny, J. and Screen, J. A. (2010). Disciplines, geography, and gender in the framing of climate change. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 91(8): 997–1002.Google Scholar
O’Neill, S. J., Williams, H., Kurz, T., et al. (2015). Dominant frames in legacy and social media coverage of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Nature Climate Change, 5: 380–385.Google Scholar
O’Reilly, J. (2015). Glacial dramas: typos, projections, and peer review in the Fourth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In: Barnes, J. and Dove, M. (eds.), Climate Cultures. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. pp. 107–126.Google Scholar
O’Reilly, J., Brysse, K., Oppenheimer, M. and Oreskes, N. (2011). Characterizing uncertainty in expert assessments: ozone depletion and the West Antarctic ice sheet. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change. 2: 728–743.Google Scholar
O’Reilly, J., Oreskes, N. and Oppenheimer, M. (2012). The rapid disintegration of projections: the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and the IPCC. Social Studies of Science, 42(5): 709–731.Google Scholar
Obermeister, N. (2017). From dichotomy to duality: addressing interdisciplinary epistemological barriers to inclusive knowledge governance in global environmental assessments. Environmental Science & Policy, 68: 80–86.Google Scholar
Oppenheimer, M., O’Neill, B. C., Webster, M. and Agrawala, S. (2007). The limits of consensus. Science, 317: 1505–1506.Google Scholar
Oppenheimer, M., Oreskes, N., Jamieson, D., et al. (2019). Discerning Experts: The Practices of Scientific Assessment for Environmental Policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Oppenheimer, M. and Petsonk, A. (2005). Article 2 of the UNFCCC: Historical origins, recent interpretations. Climatic Change, 73(3): 195–226.Google Scholar
Oreskes, N. and Conway, E. M. (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
Oreskes, N., Shrader-Frechette, K. and Belitz, K. (1994). Verification, validation, and confirmation of numerical models in the earth sciences. Science, 263: 641–646.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2009). A Polycentric Approach for Coping with Climate Change. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 5095. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
Ourbak, T. and Tubiana, L. (2017). Changing the game: The Paris Agreement and the role of scientific communities. Climate Policy, 17(7): 819–824.Google Scholar
Pachauri, R. K. (2009). Statement of Dr. R. K. Pachauri. 22 September. Available at: https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/rkp-statement-unccs-09.pdf (Accessed: 19 February 2022).Google Scholar
Pachauri, R. K., Taniguchi, T., and Tanaka, K. (eds.) (2000). Guidance Papers on the Cross Cutting Issues of the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC. Geneva: IPCC. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/publication/guidance-papers-on-the-cross-cutting-issues-of-the-third-assessment-report-of-the-ipcc/ (Accessed: 12 February 2022).Google Scholar
Packalen, M. and Bhattacharya, J. (2015). Age and the Trying Out of New Ideas. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 20920. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Paglia, E. and Parker, C. (2021). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: guardian of climate science. In: Boin, A., Fahy, L. A., and ’t Hart, P. (eds.), Guardians of Public Value. London: Cham, Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 295–321.Google Scholar
Pallett, H. and Chilvers, J. (2013). A decade of learning about publics, participation, and climate change: institutionalising reflexivity? Environment and Planning A, 45: 1162–1183.Google Scholar
Palmer, J., Owens, S. and Doubleday, R. (2019). Perfecting the ‘elevator pitch’? Expert advice as locally-situated boundary work. Science and Public Policy, 46(2): 244–253.Google Scholar
Parsons, M., Fisher, K. and Nalau, J. (2016). Alternative approaches to co-design: insights from indigenous/academic research collaborations. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 20: 99–105.Google Scholar
Patt, A. (2007). Assessing model-based and conflict-based uncertainty. Global Environmental Change, 17(1): 37–46.Google Scholar
Patt, A. and Dessai, S. (2005). Communicating uncertainty: lessons learned and suggestions for climate change assessment. Comptes Rendus Geoscience, 337(4): 425–441.Google Scholar
PBL [Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency] (2010). Assessing an IPCC Assessment. An Analysis of Statements on Projected Regional Impacts in the 2007 Report. The Hague: Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.Google Scholar
Pearce, D. (1997). Economists and climate change. Environment and Planning A, 29(1): 1–4.Google Scholar
Pearce, W., Grundmann, R., Hulme, M., Raman, S., Kershaw, E. H. and Tsouvalis, J. (2017a). Beyond counting climate consensus. Environmental Communication, 11(6): 723–730.Google Scholar
Pearce, W., Grundmann, R., Hulme, M., Raman, S., Hadley Kershaw, E. and Tsouvalis, J. (2017b). A reply to Cook and Oreskes on climate science consensus messaging. Environmental Communication, 11(6): 736–739.Google Scholar
Pearce, W., Mahony, M. and Raman, S. (2018). Science advice for global challenges: learning from trade-offs in the IPCC. Environmental Science & Policy, 80: 125–131.Google Scholar
Petersen, A. C. (2000). Philosophy of climate science. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 81(2): 265–271.2.3.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, A. C. ([2006] 2012). Simulating Nature: A Philosophical Study of Computer-Simulation Uncertainties and Their Role in Climate Science and Policy Advice, 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Petersen, A. C. (2007). Is het Watt of watt? Dagboek: Achter de schermen van de Parijse klimaatconferentie [Is it Watt or watt? Diary: Behind the scenes of the climate conference in Paris], about the IPCC Plenary of Working Group I (29 January–1 February 2007) in the Dutch weekly news magazine Vrij Nederland, 10 February 2007, pp. 20–21. [In Dutch]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. Berlin: Springer. pp. 91–111.Google Scholar
Petersen, A. C., Blackstock, J. B., and Morisetti, N. (2015). New leadership for a user-friendly IPCC. Nature Climate Change, 5: 909–911.Google Scholar
Pielke, R., Jr. (2018). Opening up the climate policy envelope. Issues in Science and Technology, 34(4): 33–40.Google Scholar
Pielke, R., Jr. and Ritchie, J. (2021). Distorting the view of our climate future: the misuse and abuse of climate pathways and scenarios. Energy Research and Social Science, 72: 101890.Google Scholar
Pinch, T. (2015). Scientific controversies. In: Wright, J. D. (ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Second Edi. Amsterdam: Elsevier. pp. 281–286.Google Scholar
Poortvliet, P. M., Niles, M. T., Veraart, J. A., Werners, S. E., Korporaal, F. C. and Mulder, B. C. (2020). Communicating climate change risk: a content analysis of IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers. Sustainability, 12(12): 4861.Google Scholar
Porter, J. R., Challinor, A. J., Henriksen, C. B., Howden, S. M., Martre, P. and Smith, P. (2019). Invited review: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, agriculture, and food – a case of shifting cultivation and history. Global Change Biology, 25(8): 2518–2529.Google Scholar
Porter, T. M. (1995). Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Pörtner, H. O., Scholes, R. J., Agard, J., et al. (2021). IPBES-IPCC Co-Sponsored Workshop Report on Biodiversity and Climate Change. IPBES and IPCC. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4782538.Google Scholar
Provost, G. (2019). Rigorous and relevant: applying lessons from the history of IPCC Special Reports to the Post-Paris Agreement world. Harvard Environmental Law Review, (43): 507–546.Google Scholar
Raman, S. and Pearce, W. (2020). Learning the lessons of Climategate: a cosmopolitan moment in the public life of climate science. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 11, e672.Google Scholar
Randalls, S. (2010). History of the 2° C climate target. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1(4): 598–605.Google Scholar
Rayner, S. and Malone, E. L. (eds.) (1998). Human Choice and Climate Change, 4 Vols. Columbus, OH: Battelle Press.Google Scholar
Reisinger, A., Howden, H., Vera, C., et al. (2020). The Concept of Risk in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report: A Summary of Cross-Working Group Discussions. Geneva: IPCC. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/event/guidance-note-concept-of-risk-in-the-6ar-cross-wg-discussions/ (Accessed: 11 February 2022).Google Scholar
Rescher, N. (1993). Pluralism: Against the Demand for Consensus. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rheinberger, H.-J. (1997). Toward a History of Epistemic Things: Synthesizing Proteins in the Test Tube. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Riousset, P., Flachsland, C. and Kowarsch, M. (2017). Global environmental assessments: impact mechanisms. Environmental Science & Policy, 77: 260–267.Google Scholar
Ripple, W. J., Wolf, C., Newsome, T. M., et al. (2021). World scientists’ warning of a climate emergency 2021. BioScience, 71(9): 894–898.Google Scholar
Rivera-Ferre, M. G. (2020). From agriculture to food systems in the IPCC. Global Change Biology, 26(5): 2731–2733.Google Scholar
Robertson, S. (2021). Transparency, trust, and integrated assessment models: an ethical consideration for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 12(1): e679.Google Scholar
Rodhe, H. (2013). Bert Bolin (1925–2007) – a world leading climate scientist and science organiser. Tellus B: Chemical and Physical Meteorology, 65(1): 20583.Google Scholar
Rothstein, H., Borraz, O. and Huber, M. (2012). Risk and the limits of governance: exploring varied patterns of risk-based governance across Europe. Regulation & Governance, 7: 215–235.Google Scholar
Rowe, E. (2012). International science, domestic politics: Russian reception of international climate-change assessments. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 30: 711–726.Google Scholar
Rueschemeyer, D. and Skocpol, T. (eds.) (1996). States, Social Knowledge, and the Origins of Modern Social Policies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ruffini, P.-B. (2017). Science and Diplomacy. New York: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
Sanford, M., Painter, J., Yasseri, T. and Lorimer, J. (2021). Controversy around climate change reports: a case study of Twitter responses to the 2019 IPCC report on land. Climatic Change, 167(3–4): 1–25.Google Scholar
Sarewitz, D. (2004). How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science & Policy, 7: 385–403.Google Scholar
Sarewitz, D. (2011). Does climate change knowledge really matter? Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2(4): 475–481.Google Scholar
Savo, V., Lepofsky, D., Benner, J., et al. (2016). Observations of climate change among subsistence-oriented communities around the world. Nature Climate Change, 6: 462–473.Google Scholar
Sawatzky, A., Cunsolo, A., Jones-Bitton, A., et al. (2020). ‘The best scientists are the people that’s out there’: Inuit-led integrated environment and health monitoring to respond to climate change in the Circumpolar North. Climatic Change, 160(1): 45–66.Google Scholar
Schellnhuber, H. (1999). Earth system’ analysis and the second Copernican revolution. Nature, 402: C19–C23.Google Scholar
Schipper, E. L. F., Dubash, N. K. and Mulugetta, Y. (2021). Climate change research and the search for solutions: Rethinking interdisciplinarity. Climatic Change, 168(3): 18.Google Scholar
Schneider, S. H. (1991). Report on reports: three reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 33(1): 25–30.Google Scholar
Schön, D. and Argyris, C. (1996). Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method and Practice. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
Schulte-Uebbing, L., Hansen, G., Macaspac, Hernández, A. and Winter, M. (2015). Chapter scientists in the IPCC AR5 – experiences and lessons learned. Current Opinion Environmental Sustainability, 14: 250–256.Google Scholar
Scott, J. C. (1995). Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. Hartford, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Sénit, C.-A., Biermann, F. and Kalfagianni, A. (2017). The representativeness of global deliberation: a critical assessment of civil society consultations for sustainable development. Global Policy, 8: 62–72.Google Scholar
Shackley, S. (1997). The IPCC: consensual knowledge and global politics. Global Environmental Change, 7: 77–79.Google Scholar
Shackley, S., Risbey, J., Stone, P. and Wynne, B. (1999). Adjusting to policy expectations in climate change modeling: an interdisciplinary study of flux adjustments in coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation models. Climatic Change, 43: 413–454.Google Scholar
Shackley, S. and Skodvin, T. (1995). IPCC gazing and the interpretative social sciences. Global Environmental Change, 5(3): 175–180.Google Scholar
Shackley, S. and Wynne, B. (1996). Representing uncertainty in global climate change science and policy: boundary-ordering devices and authority. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 21(3): 275–302.Google Scholar
Shackley, S. and Wynne, B. (1997). Global warming potentials: ambiguity or precision as an aid to policy? Climate Research, 8(2): 89–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapin, S. (1998). Placing the view from nowhere: historical and sociological problems in the location of science placing. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 23(1): 5–12.Google Scholar
Shapin, S. (2010). Never Pure: Historical Studies of Science as If It Was Produced by People with Bodies, Situated in Time, Space, Culture and Society, and Struggling for Credibility and Authority. Baltimore, MA: The John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Shaw, A. (2005). Policy Relevant Scientific Information: The Co-Production of Objectivity and Relevance in the IPCC. Berkeley, CA: Breslauer Symposium, University of California International and Area Studies.Google Scholar
Shaw, A. and Robinson, J. (2004). Relevant but not prescriptive? Science policy models within the IPCC. Philosophy Today, 48: 106–117.Google Scholar
Shaw, C. (2013). Choosing a dangerous limit for climate change: public representations of the decision-making process. Global Environmental Change, 23(2): 563–571.Google Scholar
Shukla, J., Hagedorn, R., Miller, M., et al. (2009). Strategies: revolution in climate prediction is both necessary and possible: a declaration at the World Modelling Summit for climate prediction. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 90: 175–178.Google Scholar
Siebenhüner, B. (2002). How do scientific assessments learn? Part 1. Conceptual framework and case study of the IPCC. Environmental Science & Policy, 5(5): 411–420.Google Scholar
Siebenhüner, B. (2003). The changing role of nation states in international environmental assessments – the case of the IPCC. Global Environmental Change, 13(2): 113–123.Google Scholar
Siebenhüner, B. (2014). Changing demands at the science–policy interface: organizational learning in the IPCC. In: Hey, E., Raulus, H., Arts, K. and Ambrus, M. (eds.), The Role of ‘Experts’ in International and European Decision-Making Processes: Advisors, Decision Makers or Irrelevant Actors? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 126–147.Google Scholar
Silberzahn, R., Uhlmann, E. L., Martin, D. P., et al. (2018). Many analysts, one data set: making transparent how variations in analytic choices affect results. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1: 337–356.Google Scholar
Simpson, N. P., Mach, K. J., Constable, A., et al. (2021). A framework for complex climate change risk assessment. One Earth, 4(4): 489–501.Google Scholar
Skea, J., Shukla, P., Al Khourdajie, A. and McCollum, D. (2021). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: transparency and integrated assessment modelling. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, e727.Google Scholar
Skodvin, T. (2000a). Revised rules of procedure for the IPCC process. Climatic Change, 46(4): 409–415.Google Scholar
Skodvin, T. (2000b). Structure and Agent in the Scientific Diplomacy of Climate Change: An Empirical Case Study of Science-Policy Interaction in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Skrydstrup, M. (2013). Tricked or troubled natures? How to make sense of ‘Climategate’. Environmental Science & Policy, 28: 92–99.Google Scholar
Smallman, M. (2016). Public understanding of science in turbulent times III: deficit to dialogue, champions to critics. Public Understanding of Science, 25(2): 186–197.Google Scholar
Smith, H. A. and Sharp, K. (2012). Indigenous climate knowledges. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 3(5): 467–476.Google Scholar
Social Learning Group (2001). Learning to Manage Global Environmental Risks. 2 vols. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Søgaard Jørgensen, P., Evoh, C. J., Gerhardinger, L. C., et al. (2019). Building urgent intergenerational bridges: assessing early career researcher integration in global sustainability initiatives. Current Opinion Environmental Sustainability, 39: 153–159.Google Scholar
Spier, R. (2002). The history of the peer-review process. Trends in Biotechnology, 20(8): 357–358.Google Scholar
Standring, A. and Lidskog, R. (2021). (How) Does diversity still matter for the IPCC? instrumental, substantive and co-productive logics of diversity in global environmental assessments. Climate, 9(6): 99.Google Scholar
Star, S. L. (2010). This is not a boundary object: reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35(5): 601–617.Google Scholar
Star, S. L. and Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3): 387–420.Google Scholar
Stavins, R. (2014). Is the IPCC government approval process broken? 24 April. Available at: www.huffpost.com/entry/is-the-ipcc-government-ap_b_5223421 (Accessed: 19 February 2022).Google Scholar
Stengers, I. (2005). The cosmopolitical proposal. In: Latour, B. and Weibel, P. (eds.), Making Things Public. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. pp. 994–1003.Google Scholar
Stocker, T. F. and Plattner, G. K. (2016). Making use of the IPCC’s powerful communication tool. Nature Climate Change, 6(7): 637–638.Google Scholar
Stouffer, R., Eyring, V., Meehl, G. A., et al. (2017). CMIP 5 scientific gaps and recommendations for CMIP 6. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 98(1): 95–105.Google Scholar
Sundqvist, G., Bohlin, I., Hermansen, E. and Yearley, S. (2015). Formalization and separation: a systematic basis for interpreting approaches to summarizing science for climate policy. Social Studies of Science, 3(45): 416–440.Google Scholar
Sundqvist, G., Gasper, D., St, Lera. Clair, A., et al. (2018). One-world or two?: science-policy interactions in the climate field. Critical Policy Studies, 12(4): 448–468.Google Scholar
Swart, R., Bernstein, L., Ha-Duong, M. and Petersen, A., (2009). Agreeing to disagree: uncertainty management in assessing climate change, impacts and responses by the IPCC. Climatic Change, 92(1): 1–29.Google Scholar
Tàbara, J. D., St. Clair, A. L. and Hermansen, E. A. T. (2017). Transforming communication and knowledge production processes to address high-end climate change. Environmental Science & Policy, 70: 31–37.Google Scholar
Tallberg, J., Sommerer, T., Squatrito, T. and Jönsson, C. (2013). The Opening Up of International Organizations: Transnational Access in Global Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Teng, F. and Wang, P. (2021). The evolution of climate governance in China: drivers, features, and effectiveness. Environmental Politics, 30(Sup.): 141–161.Google Scholar
Tengö, M., Brondizio, E. S., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P. and Spierenburg, M. (2014). Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple evidence base approach. Ambio, 43: 579–591.Google Scholar
Teso-Alonso, M.-G., Morales-Corral, E. and Gaitán-Moya, J.-A. (2021). The climate emergency in the Spanish media and the ‘Decalogue of recommendations for reporting on climate change’. Communication & Society, 34(2): 107–123.Google Scholar
Tirpak, D. and Vellinga, P. (1990). Emissions scenarios. In: IPCC, Climate Change: The IPCC Response Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Touzé-Peiffer, L., Barberousse, A. and Le Treut, H. (2020). The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project: history, uses, and structural effects on climate research. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 11(4): e648.Google Scholar
Trench, B. (2008). Towards an analytical framework of science communication models. In: Cheng, D., Claessens, M., Gascoigne, T., Metcalfe, J., Schiele, B. and Shi, S. (eds.), Communicating Science in Social Contexts. Netherlands: Springer. pp. 119–135.Google Scholar
Turnhout, E., Dewulf, A. and Hulme, M. (2016). What does policy-relevant global environmental knowledge do? The cases of climate and biodiversity. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 18: 65–72.Google Scholar
UN (2007). UNDRIP United Nations General Assembly Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, A/RES/61/295. Available at: www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf (Accessed: 2 March 2022).Google Scholar
UNDP (2020). People’s Climate Vote: Results. www.undp.org/publications/peoples-climate-vote#modal-publication-downloadGoogle Scholar
UNEP (2021). Why Private Sector Engagement Matters. Available at: www.unep.org/about-un-environment/private-sector-engagement/why-private-sector-engagement-matters (Accessed: 15 January 2022).Google Scholar
UNFCCC (2015). Adoption of the Paris Agreement. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Conference of the Parties (COP) twenty-first session. FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1Google Scholar
Vadrot, A. B. M. (2017). Knowledge, international relations and the structure–agency debate: towards the concept of ‘epistemic selectivities’. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 30(1): 61–72.Google Scholar
van Bavel, B. (2021). Indigenous knowledges in the IPCC assessment process: time for a reboot. Chapter 4 in: Diversifying Knowledge(s) to Advance Climate-Health Responses Locally and Globally. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Leeds, UK.Google Scholar
van Beek, L., Hajer, M., Pelzer, P., van Vuuren, D. and Cassen, C. (2020a). Anticipating futures through models: The rise of Integrated Assessment Modelling in the climate science–policy interface since 1970. Global Environmental Change, 65: 102191.Google Scholar
van Beek, L., Metze, T., Kunseler, E., Huitzing, H., de Blois, F. and Wardekker, A. (2020b). Environmental visualizations: framing and reframing between science, policy and society. Environmental Science & Policy, 114: 497–505.Google Scholar
van den Hove, S. (2007). A rationale for science-policy interfaces. Futures, 39(7): 807–826.Google Scholar
van der Hel, S. and Biermann, F. (2017). The authority of science in sustainability governance: a structured comparison of six science institutions engaged with the Sustainable Development Goals. Environmental Science & Policy, 77: 211–220.Google Scholar
van der Sluijs, J., van Eijndhoven, J., Shackley, S. and Wynne, B. (1998). Anchoring devices in science for policy: the case of consensus around the climate sensitivity. Social Studies of Science, 28(2): 291–323.Google Scholar
van der Veer, L., Visser, H., Petersen, A. and Janssen, P. (2014). Innovating the IPCC review process – the potential of young talent. Climatic Change, 125: 137–148.Google Scholar
Vardy, M., Oppenheimer, M., Dubash, N. K., O’Reilly, J. and Jamieson, D. (2017). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: challenges and opportunities. The Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 42: 55–75.Google Scholar
Vasileiadou, E., Heimeriks, G. and Petersen, A. C. (2011). Exploring the impact of the IPCC Assessment Reports on science. Environmental Science & Policy, 14(8): 1052–1061.Google Scholar
Vaughan, C. (2016). An Institutional Analysis of the IPCC Task Group on Data and Scenario Support for Impacts and Climate Analysis (TGICA). A working paper of the Climate Services Partnership CSP 20160101. Available at: www.climate-services.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Vaughan-TGICA-Institutional-Analysis-Jan-15-2016_final.pdf (Accessed: 3 September 2021).Google Scholar
Venturini, T. (2010). Diving in magma: how to explore controversies with actor-network theory. Public Understanding of Science, 19(3): 258–273.Google Scholar
Venturini, T. and Munck, A. (2021). Controversy Mapping: A Field Guide. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Venturini, T., De Pryck, K. and Ackland, R. (2022). Bridging in network organisations: the case of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Social Networks. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2022.01.015Google Scholar
Verheggen, B., Strengers, B., Cook, J., et al. (2014). Scientists’ views about attribution of global warming. Environmental Science & Technology, 48: 8963–8971.Google Scholar
Victor, D. G., Gerlagh, R. and Baiocchi, G. (2014). Getting serious about categorizing countries. Science, 345(6192): 34–36.Google Scholar
Victor, D. G. (2015). Embed the social sciences in climate policy. Nature, 520: 27–29.Google Scholar
Viner, D. and Howarth, C. (2014). Practitioners’ work and evidence in IPCC reports. Nature Climate Change, 4: 848–850.Google Scholar
von Bernstorff, J. (2021). New Responses to the legitimacy crisis of international institutions: the role of ‘civil society’ and the rise of the principle of participation of ‘the most affected’ in international institutional law. European Journal of International Law, 32: 125–157.Google Scholar
Voosen, P. (2020). Europe builds ‘digital twin’ of Earth to hone climate forecasts. Science, 370: 16–17.Google Scholar
Walsh, L. (2010). Before climategate: visual strategies to integrate ethos across the ‘is/ought’ divide in the IPCC’s Climate Change 2007: Summary for Policy Makers. Poroi, 6(2): 33–61.Google Scholar
Walsh, L. (2015). The visual rhetoric of climate change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 6(4): 361–368.Google Scholar
Wang, Z., Altenburger, R., Backhaus, T., et al. (2021). We need a global science-policy body on chemicals and waste. Science, 371: 774–776.Google Scholar
Wardekker, A. and Lorenz, S. (2019). The visual framing of climate change impacts and adaptation in the IPCC assessment reports. Climatic Change, 156: 273–292.Google Scholar
Watson, R. T. (2005). Turning science into policy: challenges and experiences from the science–policy interface. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 360(1454): 471–477.Google Scholar
Weart, S. R. (2008). The Discovery of Global Warming: Revised and Expanded Edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Weart, S. R. (2021). The Discovery of Global Warming: International Cooperation. Available at: https://history.aip.org/climate/internat.htm (Accessed: 14 August 2021).Google Scholar
Weyant, J., Azar, C., Kainuma, M., et al. (2009). Report of 2.6 versus 2.9 Watts/m2 RCP Evaluation Panel. Integrated Assessment Modelling Consortium, 2009. Available as IPCC-XXX/INF.6.Google Scholar
Whatmore, S. J. (2009). Mapping knowledge controversies: science, democracy and the redistribution of expertise. Progress in Human Geography, 33(5): 587–598.Google Scholar
Whyte, K. (2018). What do Indigenous knowledges do for Indigenous peoples? In: Nelson, M. K. and Shilling, D. (eds.), Keepers of the Green World: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Sustainability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 57–82.Google Scholar
Wible, B. (2014). IPCC lessons from Berlin: Did the ‘Summary for Policymakers’ become a summary by policy-makers? Science, 345(6192):34.Google Scholar
Wilhere, G. (2021). A Paris-like agreement for biodiversity needs IPCC-like science. Global Ecology and Conservation, 28: e01617.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, M. D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, A., et al. (2016). The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data, 3: 160018.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. K. and Beardsley, M. C. (1946). The intentional fallacy. The Sewanee Review, 54(3): 468–488.Google Scholar
World Meteorological Organization (WMO) (2021). The WMO Building / Conference Centre. Available at: https://public.wmo.int/en/resources/wmo-building-conference-centre (Accessed: 15 January 2022).Google Scholar
Wynne, B. (1984). The institutional context of science, models, and policy: the IIASA energy study. Policy Sciences, 17: 277–320.Google Scholar
Wynne, B. (1993). Public uptake of science: a case for institutional reflexivity. Public Understanding of Science, 2: 321–337.Google Scholar
Xue, W., Hine, D., Marks, A., Phillips, W. and Zhao, S. (2016). Cultural worldviews and climate change: a view from China. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 19: 134–144.Google Scholar
Yamineva, Y. (2017). Lessons from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on inclusiveness across geographies and stakeholders. Environmental Science & Policy, 77: 244–251.Google Scholar
Yarrow, T. (2017). Where knowledge meets: heritage expertise at the intersection of people, perspective, and place. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 23(S1): 95–109.Google Scholar
Yearley, S. (2009). Sociology and climate change after Kyoto: what roles for social science in understanding climate change? Current Sociology, 57(3): 389–405.Google Scholar
Yona, L,. Cashore, B. and Bradford, M. A. (2022). Factors influencing the development and implementation of national greenhouse gas inventory methodologies. Policy Design and Practice. http://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2021.2020967Google Scholar
Zillman, J. W. (2007). Some observations on the IPCC assessment process 1988–2007. Energy and Environment, 18: 869–892.Google Scholar
Zommers, Z., Marbaix, P., Fischlin, P., et al. (2020). Burning embers: towards more transparent and robust climate-change risk assessments. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 1: 516–529.Google Scholar
Zorita, E. (2019). The climate of the past millennium and online public engagement in a scientific debate. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 10(5): e590.Google Scholar
You have
Access
Open access
- 1
- Cited by