Tricked or troubled natures?

Skrydstrup, Martin

doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2012.11.012

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…No one has been able to prove who illegally obtained and published the Climategate files in November 2009 [15]. Even so, when published, a heterogeneous group of climate skeptics and other critical actors effectively made the files subject to a public debate about the credibility of climate science [20,22].…”

Section: Revisiting Climategatementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Even so, when published, a heterogeneous group of climate skeptics and other critical actors effectively made the files subject to a public debate about the credibility of climate science [20,22]. By specifically referring to bits and pieces of the emails among the files, it was argued that the files were proof that the claim of anthropogenic climate change was an alarmistic hoax [15]. The emails covered a total of 13 years of formal, semiformal, and informal conversations between the world's leading climate scientists, including, e.g., discussions on methodological issues, open access to data, scientific communication, and relations to the public in general and climate skeptics in particular [20].…”

Section: Revisiting Climategatementioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the reviewers concluded that there were problems with transparency in the data collection and data management, particularly at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (cf. [14,15,17]).…”

Section: Revisiting Climategatementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Climategate refers to the now well-known series of events that started when thousands of files that were illegally obtained from servers at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, UK were published on the internet in November 2009 [14,15]. The Climategate files included documents, raw data, computer code, and e-mail correspondence between high-profile climate scientists [14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A heterogeneous group of climate skeptics and other critical actors effectively made the Climategate files and the errors in AR4 subject to a public debate about the credibility and trustworthiness of climate science in general and the IPCC in particular [20,22]. These critics varied from actors arguing that the files and errors were proof that the claim of anthropogenic climate changes was an alarmistic hoax [15], to actors arguing that the files and errors should be seen as signs that climate science and the IPCC needed to engage in self-critique and improve their work methods to remain trustworthy [19].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Learning from the Experiences of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Balancing Science and Policy to Enable Trustworthy Knowledge

Gustafsson

2019

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To create a societal change towards a sustainable future, constructive relations between science and policy are of major importance. Boundary organizations such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have come to play an important role in establishing such constructive relations. This study contributes to the development of empirically informed knowledge on the challenge of balancing different expectations for how the science–policy relation is to be constructed to create trustworthy knowledge and policy decisions, i.e., when to be what and to whom. This study revisits Climategate and uses the public debate on the IPCC’s credibility, legitimacy, and policy relevance that followed Climategate as an analytical window to explore how the IPCC balanced the science–policy relation in a trustworthy manner. The analysis is based on a document study. The study shows how different expectations on the science–policy relation coexist, and how these risks create a loss of trust, credibility, legitimacy, and policy relevance. Thus, for boundary organizations to have a chance to impact policy discussions, reflexivity about the present epistemic ideals and expectations on knowledge production is of major importance, and must be reflected in an organizational flexibility that is open to different strategies on how to connect science and policy in relation to different actors and phases of the knowledge production process.

show abstract

Section: Revisiting Climategatementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Revisiting Climategatementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Revisiting Climategatementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Learning from the Experiences of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Balancing Science and Policy to Enable Trustworthy Knowledge

Gustafsson

2019

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Equipped to deal with uncertainty in climate and impacts predictions: lessons from internal peer review

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The quantification of uncertainty is an increasingly popular topic, with clear importance for climate change policy. However, uncertainty assessments are open to a range of interpretations, each of which may lead to a different policy recommendation. In the EQUIP project researchers from the UK climate modelling, statistical modelling, and impacts communities worked together on 'end-to-end' uncertainty assessments of climate change and its impacts. Here, we use an experiment in peer review amongst project members to assess variation in the assessment of uncertainties between EQUIP researchers. We find overall agreement on key sources of uncertainty but a large variation in the assessment of the methods used for uncertainty assessment. Results show that communication aimed at specialists makes the methods used harder to assess. There is also evidence of individual bias, which is partially attributable to disciplinary backgrounds. However, varying views on the methods used to quantify uncertainty did not preclude consensus on the consequential results produced using those methods. Based on our analysis, we make recommendations for developing and presenting statements on climate and its impacts. These include the use of a common uncertainty reporting format in order to make assumptions clear; presentation of results in terms of processes and trade-offs rather than only numerical ranges; and reporting multiple assessments of uncertainty in order to elucidate a more complete picture of impacts and their uncertainties. This in turn implies research should be done by teams of people with a range of backgrounds and time for interaction and discussion, with fewer but more comprehensive outputs in which the range of opinions is recorded.

show abstract

Spatially enabling the Global Framework for Climate Services: Reviewing geospatial solutions to efficiently share and integrate climate data & information

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tricked or troubled natures?

Cited by 10 publications

References 1 publication

Learning from the Experiences of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Balancing Science and Policy to Enable Trustworthy Knowledge

Learning from the Experiences of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Balancing Science and Policy to Enable Trustworthy Knowledge

Equipped to deal with uncertainty in climate and impacts predictions: lessons from internal peer review

Spatially enabling the Global Framework for Climate Services: Reviewing geospatial solutions to efficiently share and integrate climate data & information

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About