The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) conducts policy-relevant but not policy-prescriptive assessments of climate science. In this review, we engage with some of the key design features, achievements, and challenges that situate and characterize the IPCC as an intergovernmental organization that is tasked with producing global environmental assessments (GEAs). These include the process of working through consensus to assess and summarize climate science and the need to include knowledge from as many of the 195 IPCC nation-states as possible, despite the structural inequalities between developed and developing countries. To highlight salient features that are unique to the IPCC but that offer lessons for other organizations that conduct GEAs, we include case studies on the politics of climate denialism, the use of geoengineering in mitigation scenarios, and the links between adaptive capacity, adaptation, and global development. We conclude with a discussion of institutional reflexivity. We consider how the IPCC can model an ethical and participatory response to climate change by critically examining, and being transparent about, the relation between science and politics.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


Literature Cited

  1. Clark WC, Mitchell RB, Cash DW. 1.  2006. Evaluating the influence of global environmental assessments. Global Environmental Assessments: Information and Influence RB Mitchell, WC Clark, DW Cash, NM Dickson 1–28 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  2. Scoones I. 2.  2009. The politics of global assessments: the case of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). J. Peasant Stud. 36:547–71 [Google Scholar]
  3. Farrell AE, Jäger J, VanDeveer SD. 3.  2006. Understanding design choices. Assessments of Regional and Global Environmental Risks: Designing Processes for the Effective Use of Science in Decisionmaking AE Farrell, J Jäger 1–24 Washington, DC: Resources for the Future Press [Google Scholar]
  4. Mooney HA, Duraiappah A, Larigauderie A. 4.  2013. Evolution of natural and social science interactions in global change research programs. PNAS 110:3665–72 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bolin B. 5.  2007. History of the Science and Politics of Climate Change: The Role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  6. Edwards PN. 6.  2010. Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data, and the Politics of Global Warming Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  7. Jamieson D. 7.  2014. Reason in a Dark Time: Why the Struggle Against Climate Change Failed–and what it Means for Our Future New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  8. Hecht AD, Tirpak D. 8.  1995. Framework agreement on climate change: a scientific and policy history. Clim. Change 29:371–402 [Google Scholar]
  9. Agrawala S. 9.  1998. Context and early origins of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Clim. Change 39:605–20 [Google Scholar]
  10. Diaz S, Demissew S, Carabias J, Joly C, Lonsdale M. 10.  et al. 2015. The IPBES conceptual framework—connecting nature and people. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 14:1–16 [Google Scholar]
  11. Houghton JT, Callander BA. 11.  1992. Climate Change 1992 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  12. Nobel Media AB. 12.  2007. The Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. Nobelprize.org Oct. 12. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/press.html
  13. Jacobs KL, Buizer JL. 13.  2016. Building community, credibility and knowledge: the third US National Climate Assessment. Clim. Change 135:9–22 [Google Scholar]
  14. Patt A. 14.  2006. Dealing with uncertainty: How do you assess the impossible?. Assessments of Regional and Global Environmental Risks: Designing Processes for the Effective Use of Science in Decisionmaking AE Farrell, J Jäger 119–137 Washington, DC: Resour. Future Press [Google Scholar]
  15. Pearce W, Brown B, Nerlich B, Koteyko N. 15.  2015. Communicating climate change: conduits, content, and consensus. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 6:613–26 [Google Scholar]
  16. Van Bouwel J. 16.  2014. Towards democratic models of science: exploring the case of scientific pluralism. Perspect. Sci. 23:149–72 [Google Scholar]
  17. Machin A. 17.  2013. Negotiating Climate Change: Radical Democracy and the Illusion of Consensus London: Zed Books
  18. Lewandowsky S, Gignac GE, Vaughan S. 18.  2013. The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science. Nat. Clim. Change 3:399–404 [Google Scholar]
  19. van der Sluijs JP, van Est R, Riphagen M. 19.  2010. Beyond consensus: reflections from a democratic perspective on the interaction between climate politics and science. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2:409–15 [Google Scholar]
  20. Hulme M, Mahony M. 20.  2010. Climate change: What do we know about the IPCC?. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 34:705–18 [Google Scholar]
  21. Beatty J, Moore A. 21.  2010. Should we aim for consensus?. Episteme 7:198–214 [Google Scholar]
  22. Mach KJ, Freeman PT, Mastrandrea MD, Field CB. 22.  2016. A multistage crucible of revision and approval shapes IPCC policymaker summaries. Sci. Adv. 2:e1600421 [Google Scholar]
  23. Hulme M. 23.  2016. 1.5°C and climate research after the Paris Agreement. Nat. Clim. Change 6:222–24 [Google Scholar]
  24. van der Sluijs JP. 24.  2012. Uncertainty and dissent in climate risk assessment: a post-normal perspective. Nat. Cult. 7:174–95 [Google Scholar]
  25. Hulme M. 25.  2013. Lessons from the IPCC: Do scientific assessments need to be consensual to be authoritative?. Future Directions for Scientific Advice in Whitehall ed. R Doubleday, J Wilsdon 142–46 Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge [Google Scholar]
  26. Field CB, Barros VR. 26.  2015. Added value from IPCC approval sessions. Science 350:36 [Google Scholar]
  27. Boehmer-Christiansen S. 27.  1994. Global climate protection policy: the limits of scientific advice. Glob. Environ. Change 4:140–59 [Google Scholar]
  28. Carraro C, Edenhofer O, Flachsland C, Kolstad C, Stavins R, Stowe R. 28.  2015. The IPCC at a crossroads: opportunities for reform. Science 350:34–35 [Google Scholar]
  29. Victor DG. 29.  2015. Embed the social sciences in climate policy. Nature 520:27–29 [Google Scholar]
  30. Victor DG, Gerlagh R, Baiocchi G. 30.  2014. Getting serious about categorizing countries. Science 345:34–36 [Google Scholar]
  31. Dubash N, Fleurbaey M, Kartha S. 31.  2014. Political implications of data presentation. Science 345:36–37 [Google Scholar]
  32. Edenhofer O, Minx J. 32.  2014. Mapmakers and navigators, facts and values. Science 345:37–38 [Google Scholar]
  33. Hallegatte S, Mach K. 33.  2016. Make climate-change assessments more relevant. Nature 534:613–15 [Google Scholar]
  34. Chan G, Carraro C, Edenhofer O, Kolstad C, Stavins R. 34.  2016. Reforming the IPCC's assessment of climate change economics. Clim. Change Econ. 7:1640001 [Google Scholar]
  35. Oppenheimer M, Little CM, Cooke RM. 35.  2016. Expert judgement and uncertainty quantification for climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 6:445–51 [Google Scholar]
  36. Oppenheimer M, O'Neill BC, Webster M, Agrawala S. 36.  2007. Climate change—the limits of consensus. Science 317:1505–6 [Google Scholar]
  37. Yohe G, Oppenheimer M. 37.  2011. Evaluation, characterization, and communication of uncertainty by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—an introductory essay. Clim. Change 108:629–39 [Google Scholar]
  38. Collins M, Knutti R, Arblaster J, Dufresne JL, Fichefet T. 38.  et al. 2013. Long-term climate change: projections, commitments and irreversibility. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change TF Stocker, D Qin, GK Plattner, M Tignor, SK Allen, et al 1029–1136 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  39. Edenhofer O. 39.  2011. Different views ensure IPCC balance. Nat. Clim. Change 1:229–30 [Google Scholar]
  40. Mach KJ, Field CB. 40.  2017. Toward the next generation of assessment. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 42:569–97 [Google Scholar]
  41. Schneider SH. 41.  2004. Abrupt non-linear climate change, irreversibility and surprise. Glob. Environ. Change 14:245–58 [Google Scholar]
  42. Beck M, Krueger T. 42.  2016. The epistemic, ethical, and political dimensions of uncertainty in integrated assessment modeling. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Clim. Change 7:627–45 [Google Scholar]
  43. O'Reilly J, Oreskes N, Oppenheimer M. 43.  2012. The rapid disintegration of projections: the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Soc. Stud. Sci. 42:709–31 [Google Scholar]
  44. Brysse K, Oreskes N, O'Reilly J, Oppenheimer M. 44.  2013. Climate change prediction: Erring on the side of least drama?. Glob. Environ. Change 23:327–37 [Google Scholar]
  45. Socolow RH. 45.  2011. High-consequence outcomes and internal disagreements: Tell us more, please. Clim. Change 108:775–90 [Google Scholar]
  46. Hughes H. 46.  2015. Bourdieu and the IPCC's symbolic power. Glob. Environ. Polit. 15:85–104 [Google Scholar]
  47. Oreskes N, Conway EM. 47.  2010. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming New York: Bloomsbury Press
  48. Oreskes N. 48.  2010. My facts are better than your facts: spreading good news about global warming. How Well do Facts Travel? The Dissemination of Reliable Knowledge P Howlett, MS Morgan 135–66 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  49. Farid M, Keen M, Papaioannou M, Parry I, Pattillo C, Ter-Martirosyan A. 49.  2016. After Paris: fiscal, macroeconomic, and financial implications of climate change IMF Staff Discuss. Note. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2016/sdn1601.pdf
  50. Oreskes N. 50.  2004. The scientific consensus on climate change. Science 306:1686 [Google Scholar]
  51. McCright AM, Dunlap RE. 51.  2003. Defeating Kyoto: the conservative movement's impact on U.S. climate change policy. Soc. Probl. 50:348–73 [Google Scholar]
  52. McCright AM, Dunlap RE. 52.  2011. Cool dudes: the denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States. Glob. Environ. Change 21:1163–72 [Google Scholar]
  53. Lewandowsky S, Oberauer K, Gignac GE. 53.  2013. NASA faked the moon landing—Therefore, (climate) science is a hoax: an anatomy of the motivated rejection of science. Psychol. Sci. 24:622–33 [Google Scholar]
  54. Boykoff MT, Boykoff JM. 54.  2004. Balance as bias: global warming and the US prestige press. Glob. Environ. Change—Hum. Policy Dimens. 14:125–36 [Google Scholar]
  55. McCright AM, Dunlap RE. 55.  2010. Anti-reflexivity: The American conservative movement's success in undermining climate science and policy. Theory Cult. Soc. 27:100–33 [Google Scholar]
  56. Oreskes N. 56.  2015. The fact of uncertainty, the uncertainty of facts and the cultural resonance of doubt. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 373:20140455 http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2014.0455 [Google Scholar]
  57. Edwards PN, Schneider SH. 57.  2001. Self-governance and peer review in science-for-policy: the case of the IPCC Second Assessment Report. Changing Atmosphere: Expert Knowledge Environ. Governance CA Miller, PN Edwards 219–46 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  58. Grundmann R. 58.  2013. “Climategate” and The Scientific Ethos. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 38:67–93 [Google Scholar]
  59. Skrydstrup M. 59.  2013. Tricked or troubled natures? How to make sense of “climategate.”. Environ. Sci. Policy 28:92–99 [Google Scholar]
  60. Lewandowsky S. 60.  2014. Conspiratory fascination versus public interest: the case of “climategate.”. Environ. Res. Lett. 9:054005 [Google Scholar]
  61. Lahsen M. 61.  2013. Climategate: the role of the social sciences. Clim. Change 119:547–58 [Google Scholar]
  62. Wynne B. 62.  2010. Strange weather, again climate science as political art. Theory Cult. Soc. 27:289–305 [Google Scholar]
  63. O'Reilly J. 63.  2015. Glacial dramas: typos, projections, and peer review in the Fourth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Cultures: Anthropological Perspectives on Climate Change J Barnes, MR Dove 107–26 New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  64. Shapiro HT, Diab R, de Brito Cruz C, Cropper M, Fang J. 64.  et al. 2010. Climate change assessments: review of the processes and procedures of the IPCC Rep., InterAcademy Council Amsterdam:
  65. 65. International Institute for Sustainable Development. 2016. Summary of The 43rd Session of the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change: 11–13 April 2016. Earth Negotiations Bulletin April 12
  66. Sokona Y, Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Eickemeier P, Minx J. 66.  2016. Communicating the science of climate change mitigation: AR5 experiences from Working Group III. Advance paper. IPCC Expert Meeting on Communication: Meeting Report J Lynn, M Araya, Ø Christophersen, IE Gizouli, SJ Hassol 68–70 Geneva: IPCC Secr. [Google Scholar]
  67. Miller CA. 67.  2006. The design and management of international scientific assessments. Assessments of Regional and Global Environmental Risks: Designing Processes for the Effective Use of Science in Decisionmaking AE Farrell, J Jäger 187–205 Washington, DC: Resour. Future Press [Google Scholar]
  68. Lahsen M. 68.  2005. Technocracy, democracy, and US climate politics: the need for demarcations. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 30:137–69 [Google Scholar]
  69. Hajer MA. 69.  2012. A media storm in the world risk society: enacting scientific authority in the IPCC controversy (2009–10). Crit. Policy Stud. 6:452–64 [Google Scholar]
  70. Schiermeier Q. 70.  2010. Few fishy facts found in climate report. Nature 466:170 [Google Scholar]
  71. Hollin GJS, Pearce W. 71.  2015. Tension between scientific certainty and meaning complicates communication of IPCC reports. Nat. Clim. Change 5:753–56 [Google Scholar]
  72. Pearce W, Hollin G. 72.  2015. Reply to “Clarity of meaning in IPCC press conference.”. Nat. Clim. Change 5:963 [Google Scholar]
  73. Smith P, Davis SJ, Creutzig F, Fuss S, Minx J. 73.  et al. 2016. Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions. Nat. Clim. Change 6:42–50 [Google Scholar]
  74. Williamson P. 74.  2016. Scrutinize CO2 removal methods. Nature 530:153–55 [Google Scholar]
  75. Rogelj J, Knutti R. 75.  2016. Geosciences after Paris. Nat. Geosci. 9:187–89 [Google Scholar]
  76. Fuss S, Canadell JG, Peters GP, Tavoni M, Andrew RM. 76.  et al. 2014. Betting on negative emissions. Nat. Clim. Change 4:850–53 [Google Scholar]
  77. Tavoni M, Socolow R. 77.  2013. Modeling meets science and technology: an introduction to a special issue on negative emissions. Clim. Change 118:1–14 [Google Scholar]
  78. Gasser T, Guivarch C, Tachiiri K, Jones CD, Ciais P. 78.  2015. Negative emissions physically needed to keep global warming below 2°C. Nat. Commun. 6:7958 [Google Scholar]
  79. Rockström J, Schellnhuber HJ, Hoskins B, Ramanathan V, Schlosser P. 79.  et al. 2016. The world's biggest gamble. Earth's Future 4:465–70 [Google Scholar]
  80. Hamilton C. 80.  2014. Geoengineering and the politics of science. Bull. At. Sci. 70:17–26 [Google Scholar]
  81. Parker A, Geden O. 81.  2016. No fudging on geoengineering. Nat. Geosci. 12:859–60 [Google Scholar]
  82. Lee H. 82.  2015. Turning the focus to solutions. Science 350:1007 [Google Scholar]
  83. Ho-Lem C, Zerriffi H, Kandlikar M. 83.  2011. Who participates in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and why: a quantitative assessment of the national representation of authors in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Glob. Environ. Change—Hum. Policy Dimens. 21:1308–17 [Google Scholar]
  84. Blicharska M, Smithers RJ, Kuchler M, Agrawal GK, Gutierrez JM. 84.  et al. 2017. Steps to overcome the North-South divide in research relevant to climate change policy and practice. Nat. Clim. Change 7:21–27 [Google Scholar]
  85. Ford JD, Cameron L, Rubis J, Maillet M, Nakashima D. 85.  et al. 2016. Including indigenous knowledge and experience in IPCC assessment reports. Nat. Clim. Change 6:349–53 [Google Scholar]
  86. Pasgaard M, Strange N. 86.  2013. A quantitative analysis of the causes of the global climate change research distribution. Glob. Environ. Change 23:1684–93 [Google Scholar]
  87. Pasgaard M, Dalsgaard B, Maruyama PK, Sandel B, Strange N. 87.  2015. Geographical imbalances and divides in the scientific production of climate change knowledge. Glob. Environ. Change—Hum. Policy Dimens. 35:279–88 [Google Scholar]
  88. Corbera E, Calvet-Mir L, Hughes H, Paterson M. 88.  2016. Patterns of authorship in the IPCC Working Group III report. Nat. Clim. Change 6:94–99 [Google Scholar]
  89. Schulte-Uebbing L, Hansen G, Hernández AM, Winter M. 89.  2015. Chapter scientists in the IPCC AR5—experience and lessons learned. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 14:250–56 [Google Scholar]
  90. Stirling A. 90.  2011. Pluralising progress: from integrative transitions to transformative diversity. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 1:82–88 [Google Scholar]
  91. Huntington HP, Gearheard S, Mahoney AR, Salomon AK. 91.  2011. Integrating traditional and scientific knowledge through collaborative natural science field research: identifying elements for success. Arctic 64:437–45 [Google Scholar]
  92. Singh A, Patwardhan A. 92.  2015. Assessing the effects of participation in IPCC: implications in capacity building of scientists from developing nations in research for adaptation and mitigation. Glob. Nest J. 17:22–28 [Google Scholar]
  93. Mahony M. 93.  2014. The IPCC and the geographies of credibility. Hist. Meteorol. 6:17 [Google Scholar]
  94. Hulme M. 94.  2010. Problems with making and governing global kinds of knowledge. Glob. Environ. Change—Hum. Policy Dimens. 20:558–64 [Google Scholar]
  95. Turnhout E, Bloomfield B, Hulme M, Vogel J, Wynne B. 95.  2012. Listen to the voices of experience. Nature 488:454–55 [Google Scholar]
  96. Beck S, Borie M, Esguerra A, Chilvers J, Heubach K. 96.  et al. 2014. Climate change and the assessment of expert knowledge: Does the IPCC model need updating?. Bridges 40: http://ostaustria.org/bridges-magazine/item/8244-climate-change-and-the-assessment-of-expert-knowledge-does-the-ipcc-model-need-updating [Google Scholar]
  97. Ford JD. 97.  2009. Dangerous climate change and the importance of adaptation for the Arctic's Inuit population. Environ. Res. Lett. 4:2 http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/4/2/024006 [Google Scholar]
  98. Ribot J. 98.  2014. Cause and response: vulnerability and climate in the Anthropocene. J. Peasant Stud. 41:667–705 [Google Scholar]
  99. Khan MR, Roberts JT. 99.  2013. Adaptation and international climate policy. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.-Clim. Change 4:171–89 [Google Scholar]
  100. Georgeson L, Maslin M, Poessinouw M, Howard S. 100.  2016. Adaptation responses to climate change differ between global megacities. Nat. Clim. Change 6:584–88 [Google Scholar]
  101. Ford JD, Berrang-Ford L. 101.  2016. The 4Cs of adaptation tracking: consistency, comparability, comprehensiveness, coherency. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change 21:839–59 [Google Scholar]
  102. Magnan AK, Ribera T. 102.  2016. Global adaptation after Paris. Science 352:1280–82 [Google Scholar]
  103. Lesnikowski A, Ford J, Biesbroek R, Berrang-Ford L, Heymann SJ. 103.  2016. National-level progress on adaptation. Nat. Clim. Change 6:261–64 [Google Scholar]
  104. Ribot J. 104.  2010. Vulnerability does not fall from the sky: toward multiscale, pro-poor climate policy. Social Dimensions of Climate Change: Equity Vulnerability Warming World R Mearns, A Norton 47–74 Washington, DC: The World Bank [Google Scholar]
  105. Marino E. 105.  2015. Fierce Climate, Sacred Ground: An Ethnography of Climate Change in Shishmaref, Alaska Fairbanks, AK: Univ. Alaska Press [Google Scholar]
  106. Taylor M. 106.  2014. The Political Ecology of Climate Change Adaptation: Livelihoods, Agrarian Change and the Conflicts of Development New York: Routledge
  107. O'Brien K, Eriksen S, Nygaard LP, Schjolden A. 107.  2007. Why different interpretations of vulnerability matter in climate change discourses. Clim. Policy 7:73–88 [Google Scholar]
  108. Noble IR, Huq S, Anokhin YA, Carmin J, Goudou D. 108.  et al. 2014. Adaptation needs and options. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change CB Field, VR Barros, DJ Dokken, KJ Mach, MD Mastrandrea, et al. 833–68 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  109. Moore FC. 109.  2010. “Doing Adaptation”: the construction of adaptive capacity and its function in the international climate negotiations. St Antony's Int. Rev. 5:66–88 [Google Scholar]
  110. Adger WN. 110.  2006. Vulnerability. Glob. Environ. Change 16:268–81 [Google Scholar]
  111. Carpenter S, Walker B, Anderies JM, Abel N. 111.  2001. From metaphor to measurement: Resilience of what to what?. Ecosystems 4:765–81 [Google Scholar]
  112. Smit B, Wandel J. 112.  2006. Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Glob. Environ. Change—Hum. Policy Dimens. 16:282–92 [Google Scholar]
  113. Beck S, Forsyth T. 113.  2015. The IPCC and adaptation to climate change. Science and Democracy: Making Knowledge and Making Power in the Biosciences and Beyond S Hilgartner, CA Miller, R Hagenddijk 113–32 New York: Routledge [Google Scholar]
  114. Inderberg TH, Eriksen S, O'Brien K, Sygna L. 114.  2014. Climate Change Adaptation and Development: Transforming Paradigms and Practices New York: Routledge
  115. Ireland P. 115.  2012. Climate change adaptation: Business-as-usual aid and development or an emerging discourse for change?. Int. J. Dev. Issues 11:92–110 [Google Scholar]
  116. Ireland P, McKinnon K. 116.  2013. Strategic localism for an uncertain world: a postdevelopment approach to climate change adaptation. Geoforum 47:158–66 [Google Scholar]
  117. Beck S. 117.  2011. Moving beyond the linear model of expertise? IPCC and the test of adaptation. Reg. Environ. Change 11:297–306 [Google Scholar]
  118. Field CB, Barros V, Stocker TF, Qin D, Dokken DJ. 118.  (Int. Panel. Clim. Change), eds. 2012. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  119. Eriksen SH, Nightingale AJ, Eakin H. 119.  2015. Reframing adaptation: the political nature of climate change adaptation. Glob. Environ. Change—Hum. Policy Dimens. 35:523–33 [Google Scholar]
  120. Pelling M, O'Brien K, Matyas D. 120.  2015. Adaptation and transformation. Clim. Change 133:113–27 [Google Scholar]
  121. O'Brien K. 121.  2012. Global environmental change II: From adaptation to deliberate transformation. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 36:667–76 [Google Scholar]
  122. Berkhout F. 122.  2012. Adaptation to climate change by organizations. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.-Clim. Change 3:91–106 [Google Scholar]
  123. Berkhout F, Hertin J, Gann DM. 123.  2006. Learning to adapt: organisational adaptation to climate change impacts. Clim. Change 78:135–56 [Google Scholar]
  124. Eisenack K, Moser SC, Hoffmann E, Klein RJT, Oberlack C. 124.  et al. 2014. Explaining and overcoming barriers to climate change adaptation. Nat. Clim. Change 4:867–72 [Google Scholar]
  125. Klein RJT, Midgley GF, Preston BL, Alam M, Berkhout FGH. 125.  et al. 2014. Adaptation opportunities, constraints, and limits. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change CB Field, VR Barros, DJ Dokken, KJ Mach, MD Mastrandrea, et al. 899–943 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  126. Park S, Marshall N, Jakku E, Dowd A-M, Howden S. 126.  et al. 2012. Informing adaptation responses to climate change through theories of transformation. Glob. Environ. Change 22:115–26 [Google Scholar]
  127. Pallett H, Chilvers J. 127.  2015. Organizations in the making. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 39:146–66 [Google Scholar]
  128. Pallett H, Chilvers J. 128.  2013. A decade of learning about publics, participation, and climate change: Institutionalising reflexivity?. Environ. Plann. A 45:1162–83 [Google Scholar]
  129. Dunlap RE, Brulle RJ. 129.  2015. Climate Change and Society: Sociological Perspectives New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  130. Lövbrand E, Beck S, Chilvers J, Forsyth T, Hedrén J. 130.  et al. 2015. Who speaks for the future of Earth? How critical social science can extend the conversation on the Anthropocene. Glob. Environ. Change 32:211–18 [Google Scholar]
  131. Beck S, Borie M, Chilvers J, Esguerra A, Heubach K. 131.  et al. 2014. Towards a reflexive turn in the governance of global environmental expertise: the cases of the IPCC and the IPBES. Gaia-Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc. 23:80–87 [Google Scholar]
  132. Adler CE, Hadorn GH. 132.  2014. The IPCC and treatment of uncertainties: topics and sources of dissensus. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 5:663–76 [Google Scholar]
  133. Stocker TF. 133.  2013. Adapting the assessments. Nat. Geosci. 6:7–8 [Google Scholar]
  134. Hulme M, Zorita E, Stocker TF, Price J, Christy JR. 134.  2010. IPCC: Cherish it, tweak it or scrap it?. Nature 463:730–32 [Google Scholar]
  135. Kowarsch M, Garard J, Riousset P, Lenzi D, Dorsch MJ. 135.  et al. 2016. Scientific assessments to facilitate deliberative policy learning. Palgrave Comm 2:16092 [Google Scholar]
  136. Edenhofer O, Kowarsch M. 136.  2015. Cartography of pathways: a new model for environmental policy assessments. Environ. Sci. Policy 51:56–64 [Google Scholar]
  137. Kowarsch M. 137.  2016. A Pragmatist Orientation for the Social Sciences in Climate Policy: How to Make Integrated Economic Assessments Serve Society Basel, Switz.: Springer
  138. Sarewitz D. 138.  2004. How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environ. Sci. Policy 7:385–403 [Google Scholar]
  139. Granjou C, Mauz I, Louvel S, Tournay V. 139.  2013. Assessing Nature? The Genesis of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Sci. Technol. Soc. 18:9–27 [Google Scholar]
  140. Larigauderie A, Mooney HA. 140.  2010. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: moving a step closer to an IPCC-like mechanism for biodiversity. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2:9–14 [Google Scholar]
  141. Gorg C, Nesshover C, Paulsch A. 141.  2010. A new link between biodiversity science and policy. Gaia-Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc. 19:183–86 [Google Scholar]
  142. Brooks TM, Lamoreux JF, Soberón J. 142.  2014. IPBES ≠ IPCC. Trends Ecol. Evol. 29:543–45 [Google Scholar]
  143. Montana J, Borie M. 143.  2015. IPBES and biodiversity expertise: regional, gender, and disciplinary balance in the composition of the interim and 2015 multidisciplinary expert panel. Conserv. Lett. 9:138–42 [Google Scholar]
  144. Bonie M, Hulme M. 144.  2015. Framing global biodiversity: IPBES between mother earth and ecosystem services. Environ. Sci. Policy 54:487–96 [Google Scholar]
  145. Lorimer J. 145.  2016. The Anthropo-scene: a guide for the perplexed. Soc. Stud. Sci. 47:117–42 [Google Scholar]
  146. Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson Å, Chapin FS III. 146.  et al. 2009. Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol. Soc. 14:32 [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error