The Limits of Consensus

Oppenheimer, Michael; O’Neill, Brian C.; Webster, Mort; Agrawala, Shardul

doi:10.1126/science.1144831

Cited by 179 publications

(98 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nonetheless, expert elicitations, based on rigorous protocols from statistics (89)(90)(91) and risk analysis (91,92), have proved to be a very valuable source of information in public policymaking (93). It is increasingly recognized that they can also play a valuable role for informing climate policy decisions (94). In the field of climate change, formal expert elicitations have been conducted, e.g., on climate sensitivity (95), forest ecosystems (96), the WAIS (97), radiative forcing of aerosols (98), and the THC (99).…”

Section: Ranking the Threatmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tipping elements in the Earth's climate system

Lenton

Held

Kriegler

et al. 2008

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

3,029

2,253

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The term ''tipping point'' commonly refers to a critical threshold at which a tiny perturbation can qualitatively alter the state or development of a system. Here we introduce the term ''tipping element'' to describe large-scale components of the Earth system that may pass a tipping point. We critically evaluate potential policy-relevant tipping elements in the climate system under anthropogenic forcing, drawing on the pertinent literature and a recent international workshop to compile a short list, and we assess where their tipping points lie. An expert elicitation is used to help rank their sensitivity to global warming and the uncertainty about the underlying physical mechanisms. Then we explain how, in principle, early warning systems could be established to detect the proximity of some tipping points.Earth system ͉ tipping points ͉ climate change ͉ large-scale impacts ͉ climate policy

show abstract

Section: Ranking the Threatmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tipping elements in the Earth's climate system

Lenton

Held

Kriegler

et al. 2008

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

3,029

2,253

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, attempts to establish the reliability of scientific claims solely by appealing to consensus are insufficient-several once-consensus models were later proven incorrect (Fraser, 2006;Russell, 1964). Further, there are limits to consensus amongst an interdisciplinary group; attempts to establish it may omit contrarian views, minimise uncertainties, and foster conservativity (Hulme & Mahony, 2010;Oppenheimer et al, 2007;Hansen, 2007). Credibility must be viewed more broadly.…”

Section: Key Conceptsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate change research and credibility: balancing tensions across professional, personal, and public domains

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For research to positively impact society, it must be scientifically credible. The researcher plays a key role in establishing and maintaining credibility, particularly in the climate change field. This paper provides a structure for relating the credibility of researchers themselves to that of research outputs, analysing 'researcher credibility' with reference to three overlapping domains: personal, professional, and public. The researcher's role in each domain is considered in a reflexive way, examining the research process and the researcher's actions. Varied definitions of researcher credibility and possible means to achieve it in each domain are discussed, drawing on relevant cross-disciplinary literature. We argue that, in certain contexts, the actions of researchers can have a direct impact on the credibility of their research. There is scope for broadening researcher credibility to include more public-oriented behaviours. This, however, may be contentious and problematic: there are potential conflicts between public action and professional credibility, with the latter usually taking precedence. By contrast, though personal action (or inaction) rarely affects professional credibility, researchers' personal behaviours may influence public perceptions of research credibility and the importance of addressing climate change.

show abstract

“…1). Such expert judgments are among the hardest tasks and greatest added value in assessment (Brysse et al 2013;Cash et al 2003;NRC 2009;Oppenheimer et al 2007;Watson and Gitay 2004). Based on accumulated experience, assessment is increasingly ready for more scientific approaches to expert judgment.…”

Section: Features Of the Climate Challenge Emphasized In Key Risksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding and responding to danger from climate change: the role of key risks in the IPCC AR5

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) identifies key risks in a changing climate to inform judgments about danger from climate change and to empower responses. In this article, we introduce the innovations and implications of its approach, which extends analysis across sectors and regions, and consider relevance for future research and assessment. Across key risks in the AR5, we analyze the changing risk levels and potential for risk reduction over the next few decades, an era with some further committed warming, and in the second half of the 21st century and beyond, a longer-term era of climate options determined by the ambition of global mitigation. The key risk assessment underpins the IPCC's conclusion that increasing magnitudes of warming increase the likelihood of severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts. Here, we emphasize central challenges in understanding and communicating risks. These features include the importance of complex interactions in shaping risks, the need for rigorous expert judgment in evaluating risks, and the centrality of values, perceptions, and goals in determining both risks and responses.Anthropogenic interference with the climate system is occurring (IPCC 2013). The impacts of climate changes that have already occurred are widespread and consequential, and with continued high emissions or even with ambitious mitigation, large and uncertain consequences will play out over long timeframes (IPCC 2014c). These conclusions are deeply rooted in scientific understanding assessed comprehensively by the IPCC. They also propel us to an assessment frontier: how can we inform solutions through innovative conceptualizations of the climate challenge in assessment?In this article, we provide an overview of one response to this question: the key risk approach applied across the Working Group II contribution to the IPCC's AR5 (WGII AR5). We discuss why the key risk approach was developed, how it works, and what it implies across sectors and regions, informing both research and assessment.

show abstract

The Limits of Consensus

Cited by 179 publications

References 15 publications

Tipping elements in the Earth's climate system

Tipping elements in the Earth's climate system

Climate change research and credibility: balancing tensions across professional, personal, and public domains

Understanding and responding to danger from climate change: the role of key risks in the IPCC AR5

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About