Abstract
Uncertainty complexity and dissent make climate change hard to tackle
with normal scientific procedures. In a post-normal perspective the normal
science task of “getting the facts right” is still regarded as necessary but no
longer as fully feasible nor as sufficient to interface science and policy. It
needs to be complemented with a task of exploring the relevance of deep
uncertainty and ignorance that limit our ability to establish objective, reliable,
and valid facts. This article explores the implications of this notion for
the climate science policy interface. According to its political configuration
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) adopted a “speaking
consensus to power” approach that sees uncertainty and dissent as a problematic
lack of unequivocalness (multiple contradictory truths that need to
be mediated into a consensus). This approach can be distinguished from two
other interface strategies: the “speaking truth to power approach,” seeing
uncertainties as a temporary lack of perfection in the knowledge (truth with
error bars) and the “working deliberatively within imperfections” approach,
accepting uncertainty and scientific dissent as facts of life (irreducible ignorance)
of which the policy relevance needs be explored explicitly. The article
recommends more openness for dissent and explicit reflection on
ignorance in IPCC process and reporting.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 174-195 |
Number of pages | 22 |
Journal | Nature and Culture |
Volume | 7 |
Issue number | 2 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 2012 |