Climategate: the role of the social sciences

Lahsen, Myanna

doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0711-x

Cited by 25 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The IPCC was not the main character within the pages of the Climategate files, and thus was not the primary target of the criticism of Climategate. However, through guilt by association, Climategate came to cast a shadow of doubt over the credibility and trustworthiness of the IPCC [14,17,22,48,49]. This outcome occurred since the criticized climate scientists played an active role in the IPCC's assessment process, and their scientific results were central contributions to the IPCC's assessment reports [20].…”

Section: The Ipcc and Climategatementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the aftermath of Climategate, including the criticism of the IPCC's AR4, multiple studies were performed on how the IPCC managed and was affected by the situation. The studies showed how Climategate contributed to the continuing polarization between climate science on one hand and climate skeptics on the other, and how Climategate resulted in the IPCC suffering a loss of trust as their credibility as knowledge producers was questioned (e.g., [14,17,22,48,49]). Despite this crisis and the polarizing tendencies, the IPCC has once again strengthened its position as a knowledge producer and has continued to play an important role as an indirect contributor to policy processes and decision making, such as the Paris Agreement in 2015 (e.g., [42]).…”

Section: The Ipcc and Climategatementioning

confidence: 99%

“…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]. 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].…”

Section: Revisiting Climategatementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two of these errors came to dominate the discussion about the credibility of the IPCC: First, the IPCC's prediction of the melting rate of the Himalayan glaciers, and second, its report of the size of the Netherlands' land area below sea level [17][18][19][20][21]. 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 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

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: The Ipcc and Climategatementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Ipcc and Climategatementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Revisiting Climategatementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 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

“…At the same time, this critique need not dominate sociological research on GCC to the point where it becomes a seemingly normative position uncritical of mainstream science and politics. Scientism in the countermovement easily could be mirrored by scientism in uncritical support of a scientific consensus . It is important to analyze the values, ideologies, and organizational activity that shape perceptions of GCC risk and avoid uncritical acceptance of somewhat monolithic perspectives on risk that have appeared in some scientific consensus reports…”

Section: Construction Of Gcc As An Environmental Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

The sociology of global climate change

Zehr

2014

WIREs Climate Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sociological research on global climate change (GCC) can be found in several subfields, but it has primarily emerged within the theoretical and substantive domain of sociology of the environment. This review provides an overview of sociological literature on climate change and identifies key areas for further research and development. The review focuses on four broad areas: social causes, construction of the problem, relationship between GCC and social inequality, and social dimensions of mitigation and adaptation. WIREs Clim Change 2015, 6:129–150. doi: 10.1002/wcc.328 This article is categorized under: Social Status of Climate Change Knowledge > Sociology/Anthropology of Climate Knowledge

show abstract

How climate change research undermines trust in everyday life: a review

Lucas

Leith

Davison

2014

WIREs Climate Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Empirical and theoretical research on trust has received little attention in climate change literature despite the central role of trust in determining responses to climate science. We reassess the challenge of climate change communication in light of recent research on trust across social, psychological, and neuroscientific disciplines. We argue that networks of explicit and implicit trust in everyday practices are a foundation of stable society. Climate change research demands that we re-evaluate our trust in many elements of our everyday lives in a way that is profoundly unsettling. The threat posed to networks of trust by climate science has contributed to political polarization of the issue. Such adversarial debate has its source not in competing biophysical claims, but in different networks of trust in existing socio-technical systems. We argue that a more nuanced understanding of the psychological and social foundations of trust offers opportunities for messengers of climate change to connect with alienated publics. We conclude that the challenge of climate change communication is not primarily to engender trust in scientific claims, but to re-align the networks of trust that make everyday life possible.

show abstract

Climategate: the role of the social sciences

Cited by 25 publications

References 34 publications

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

The sociology of global climate change

How climate change research undermines trust in everyday life: a review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About