Lessons from post‐normal science for climate science‐sceptic debates

Abstract

Climate change is a particularly good example of an issue for which the definition of problems, and attempts to resolve them, contain key roles for scientific research, alongside institutions, ideology, and individual beliefs. This can lead to rich empirical questions as to the relative balance of these influences. However, the most visible discussion about the role of scientific knowledge is often a heated and simplistic debate about the details of the science itself. Post‐normal science (PNS) is one way to think about the role of science and expertise more generally in addressing problems like climate change. PNS, it is argued, by extending the group of actors feeding expertise of different types into knowledge‐making and decision processes, can provide a richer and more in‐depth perspective and an extended function of quality control over the process of inquiry. This review introduces the concept of PNS, and some of the responses to it from various quarters. These responses offer valuable insights into the way that scientific expertise is perceived, such as perceptions about why science is used and what science should do, focusing in particular on ‘climate science‐sceptic' debates. By introducing insights from science studies, political science, policy analysis, and human geography alongside PNS, the paper offers potential ways out of such debates, and also ways that PNS may develop in the future. WIREs Clim Change 2012 doi: 10.1002/wcc.184 This article is categorized under: Social Status of Climate Change Knowledge > Knowledge and Practice

Societal transformation in response to global environmental change: A review of emerging concepts

“…Social and social-ecological change is viewed as a research problem that is often investigated interdisciplinarily and with a balance between fundamental understanding and considerations of use. The goal, at times naively, but increasingly critically intended (Shove et al 2012;Turnpenny 2012), usually lies toward informing policymaking or other forms of action by key decision-makers, and this may, but does not necessarily, imply the achievement of 'objective' knowledge produced by testing rigorous theories following a normal science paradigm (Strunz 2012). According to this model, the researcher's positionality and values are usually made explicit (Strunz 2012), and it is considered important to distinguish between the knowledge base and the political decision.…”

“…It refers to a 'post-normal' science epistemology (Turnpenny 2012), and privileges transdisciplinary and action research methodologies (Angelstam et al 2013;Seidl et al 2013), while also calling for a more active social role for science in the process of social change by directly bringing about change in society, such as in scientist-activist-practitioner networks (Evans 2011).…”

Interactions Between Climate Change, World Economics, and Climate Policy

“…This is where we first encounter the climate-sceptic point of view (e.g. Turnpenny, 2012;Whitmarsh, 2011), which, while in scientific circles is becoming less and less popular, the proportion of believer sceptics is still 17% in Australia, 15% in Norway, 13% in New-Zealand, and 12% in the USA (Tranter and Booth, 2015). Its argumentation system can probably be best demonstrated by the following quote: "First, they deny that climate change is occurring.…”

Stormy geomorphology: geomorphic contributions in an age of climate extremes

“…some of these recent events such as Typhoon Haiyun (Laipdez et al, 2015) is prompting some researchers to contextualize these events and the human impacts they cause as examples of post-normal or Type 2 science (Gibbons et al, 1994) where risks are high, decisions are urgent but where scientific evidence is often uncertain (Turnpenny, 2012). Such science needs an interdisciplinary focus.…”