Advertisement

Climate uncertainty and policy making—what do policy makers want to know?

  • Nafees MeahEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

In climate change science, the existence of a high degree of uncertainty seems to be the cause of anxiety for many scientists because it appears to undermine the authority of the science. One of the assertions made by the so-called sceptics against the scientific consensus on climate change is that because the science is so uncertain, there is no basis for taking action. The response of the climate change science community has been to develop in-depth analyses of uncertainty of increasing sophistication and complexity. In most areas of policy making, the normal situation is characterised by complexity, ambiguity and uncertainty. Therefore, dealing with uncertainty is not an unusual state of affairs for policy makers. However, the overemphasis given to uncertainty in the climate science discourse by scientists working in the field has been self-defeating as it has led to confusion among the intended recipients of the policy relevant scientific knowledge and allowed room for scepticism to grow. Climate change scientists should instead communicate and engage with policy makers (and the public) on those things that we know with confidence.

Keywords

Climate change Science policy Uncertainty Science communication 

Notes

References

  1. Adler CE, Hirsch Hadorn G (2014) The IPCC and treatment of uncertainties: topics and sources of dissensus. WIREs Clim Change 5:663–676.  https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.297 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Advertising Standards Authority (2010) Case number A09–106458/JA. (This adjudication has now been archived on the ASA website https://www.asa.org.uk/ but can be found at https://www.scribd.com/document/28305363/Climate-Change-Adjudication. Accessed 9 September 2016
  3. Australian Public Service Commission (2007) Tackling wicked problems: a public policy perspective.http://www.apsc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/6386/wickedproblems.pdf. Accessed 31 August 2016
  4. Australian Public Service Commission (2009) Challenges of evidence based policy making. http://www.apsc.gov.au/publications-and-media/archive/publications-archive/evidence-based-policy. Accessed 31 August 2016
  5. Aven T, Renn O (2015) An evaluation of the treatment of risk and uncertainties in the IPCC reports on climate change. Risk Anal 35:701–712.  https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12298 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. BBC News (2010) Climate scepticism ‘on the rise’ BBC poll shows. 7 February 2010. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8500443.stm. Accessed 31 August 2016
  7. Booker C (2009) Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation. The telegraph. 28 November 2009 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/. Accessed 6 September 2016
  8. Boykoff MT (2010) Who speaks for the climate? Making sense of media reporting on climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. Boyne GA, Meier KJ (2009) Environmental turbulence, organizational stability, and public service performance. Adm Soc 40:799–824.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399708326333 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brysse K, Oreskes N, O’Reilly J, Oppenheimer M (2013) Climate change prediction: erring on the side of least drama? Glob Environ Chang 23:327–337.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.10.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Budescu DV, Por H-H, Broomell SB, Smithson M (2014) The interpretation of IPCC probabilistic statements around the world. Nat Clim Chang 4:508–512.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2194 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Choi B, Pang T, Lin V, Puska P, Sherman G, Goddard M, Ackland MJ, Sainsbury P, Stachenko S, Morrison H, Clarence Clottey C (2005) Can scientists and policy makers work together? J Epidemiol Community Health 59:632–637.  https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2004.031765 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Circle-2 FP7 ERA-Net (2010) Uncertainties Workshop Proceedings. http://www.circle-era.eu/np4/%7B$clientServletPath%7D/?newsId=194&fileName=CIRCLE_2_WP4_Proceedings___Uncertanties_.pdf. Accessed 31 August 2016
  14. Climate Change Act 2008. The Stationary Office Limited, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Cook J, Nuccitelli D, Green S, Richardson M, Winkler B, Painting R, Way R, Jacobs P, Skuce A (2013) Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environ Res Lett 8:024024.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Corner A, Whitmarsh L, Xenias D (2012) Uncertainty, scepticism and attitudes towards climate change: biased assimilation and attitude polarisation. Clim Chang 114:463–478.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0424-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cruz R V, Harasawa H, Lal M, Wu S, Anokhin Y, Punsalmaa B, Honda Y, Jafari M, Li C and Huu Ninh N (2007) Asia. Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Parry M L, Canziani O F, Palutikof J P, van der Linden P J and Hanson C E, Eds., Cambridge University press, Cambridge, UK, 469-506Google Scholar
  18. Döll P, Romero-Lankao P (2017) How to embrace uncertainty in participatory climate change risk management—a roadmap. Earth’s Future 5:18–36.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000411 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Doubleday R and Wilsdon J (ed.) (2013) Future direction for science advice in Whitehall. Centre for Science and Policy. http://www.csap.cam.ac.uk/media/uploads/files/1/fdsaw.pdf. Accessed 31 August 2016
  20. Fischer D (2013) “Dark Money” Funds Climate Change Denial Effort Scientific American. The Daily Climate. 23 December 2013 http://www.scientificamerican.com/. Accessed 10 September 2016
  21. Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1990) Uncertainty and quality in science for policy. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Garfield R (2013) False equivalence: how ‘balance’ makes the media dangerously dumb. The Guardian. 11 October 2013 https://www.theguardian.com. Accessed 9 September 2016
  23. Gillespie E (2010) Climate change adverts help take debate among public back several years. The Guardian 17 March 2010 https://www.theguardian.com. Accessed 9 September 2016
  24. Government Office for Science (2010) Review of climate science advice to Government and Met Office Hadley Centre role, governance and resourcing. Department of Innovation, Business and Skills, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Hallsworth M, Parker S, Rutter J (2011) Policy making in the real world: evidence and analysis. Institute of Government, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Handmer J, Proudley B (2011) Communicating uncertainty via probabilities: the case of weather forecasts. Environmental Hazards 7:79–87.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envhaz.2007.05.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Howarth C, Painter J (2016) Exploring the science-policy interface on climate change: the role of the IPCC in informing local decision-making in the UK. Palgrave Commun 2:16058.  https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2016.58 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hulme M (2009) Why we disagree about climate change: understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. InterAcademy Council (2010) Review of the IPCC: an evaluation of the procedures and processes of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net. Accessed 9 September 2016
  30. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1995) The Science of Climate Change. Contribution of WGI to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Houghton J T, Meira Filho L G, Callander B A, Harris N, Kattenberg A and Maskell K (eds), production editor, Lakeman J A. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  31. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001) Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Houghton J T, Ding Y, Griggs D J, Noguer M, van der Linden P J, Dai X, Maskell K, and Johnson CA (eds). Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  32. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2005) Guidance notes for Lead authors of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on addressing uncertainties. IPCC, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  33. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) Climate Change 2007 Synthesis Report Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Core Writing Team, Pachauri R K and Reisinger A (eds). IPCC, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  34. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2014) Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Core Writing Team, Pachauri R K and Meyer L A (eds). IPCC, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  35. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Houghton J T (1990) IPCC first assessment report. World Meteorological Organisation, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  36. Jasanoff S (1990) The fifth branch: science advisors as policymakers. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  37. Jasanoff S (2013) In: Doubleday R and Wilsdon J (ed.) (2013) Future direction for science advice in Whitehall. Centre for Science and Policy. http://www.csap.cam.ac.uk/media/uploads/files/1/fdsaw.pdf . Accessed 31 August 2016
  38. Jones BD (2003) Bounded rationality and political science: lessons from public administration and public policy. J Public Adm Res Theory 13:95–412.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mug028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jowit J (2010) Sharp decline in public’s belief in climate threat, British poll reveals. The Guardian 23 February 2010. https://www.theguardian.com. Accessed 10 September 2016
  40. Knight FH (1921) Risk, uncertainty and profit. Houghton Mifflin, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  41. Koonin S (2014) Climate science is not settled. Wall Street J 19 September 2014. http://www.wsj.com/. Accessed 9 September 2016
  42. Kunreuther H, Gupta S, Bosetti V, Cooke R, Dutt V, Ha-Duong M, Held H, Llanes-Regueiro J, Patt A, Shittu E, Weber E (2014) Integrated Risk and Uncertainty Assessment of Climate Change Response Policies. In: Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Farahani E, Kadner S, Seyboth K, Adler A, Baum I, Brunner S, Eickemeier P, Kriemann B, Savolainen J, Schlömer S, von Stechow C, Zwickel, Minx JC (eds) Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Laing A (2010) Climategate ‘Professor Phil Jones’ considered suicide over email scandal. The telegraph. 7 February 2010 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/. Accessed 9 September 2016
  44. Landström C, Hauxwell-Baldwin R, Lorenzoni I, Rogers-Hayden T (2015) The (Mis)understanding of scientific uncertainty? How Experts View Policy-Makers, the Media and Publics. Sci Cult 24:276–298.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2014.992333 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lawson N (2014) The trouble with climate change. Global Warming Policy Foundation, LondonGoogle Scholar
  46. Lazarus RJ (2009) Super wicked problems and climate change: restraining the present to liberate the future. Cornell L Rev 94:1153–1233 Available at http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol94/iss5/8. Accessed 31 August 2016
  47. Lewandowsky S, Oreskes N, Risbey JS, Newell BR, Smithson M (2015) Seepage: climate change denial and its effect on the scientific community. Glob Environ Chang 33:1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.02.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mahony M, Hulme M (2016) Modelling and the nation: institutionalising climate prediction in the UK, 1988–92. Minerva 54:445–447.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-016-9302-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Manning MR, Petit M, Easterling D, Murphy J, Patwardhan A, Rogner H-H, Swart R, Yohe G (2004) IPCC workshop on describing scientific uncertainties in climate change to support analysis of risk and of options: workshop report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  50. Mastrandrea M C, Field C B, Stocker T F, Edenhofer O, Ebi KL, Frame DJ, Held H, Kriegler E, Mach K J, Matschoss P R, Plattner G-K, Yohe G W, and Zwiers F W, Guidance (2010) Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Available at http://www.ipcc.ch. Accessed 6 September 2016
  51. Moore M (2010) Government rebuked over global warming nursery rhyme adverts. The Telegraph. 14 March 2010 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/. Accessed 6 September 2016
  52. Moss R H and Schneider S H (2000) Uncertainties in the IPCC TAR: recommendations to lead authors for more consistent assessment and reporting. In: Pachauri R K, Taniguchi T, Tanaka K, (eds) Guidance Papers on the Cross Cutting Issues of the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC, Geneva, World Meteorological OrganizationGoogle Scholar
  53. NASA (2016) 2016 Climate Trends Continue to Break Records. http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/climate-trends-continue-to-break-records. Accessed 5 September 2016
  54. NBL (2010) Assessing an IPCC assessment: an analysis of statements on projected regional impacts in the 2007 report. http://www.pbl.nl/. Accessed 9 September 2016
  55. Oxburgh R, Davies H, Emanuel K, Graumlich L, Hand D, Huppert H, Kelly M (2010) Report of the International Panel set up by the University of East Anglia to examine the research of the Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia, UK. http://www.uea.ac.uk/. Accessed 9 September 2016
  56. Painter J (2011) Poles apart: the international reporting of climate Scepticism. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. University of Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  57. Pearce F (2010) Climate change debate overheated after sceptic grasped ‘hockey stick’. The Guardian. 9 February 2010 https://www.theguardian.com. Accessed 5 September 2016
  58. Pearce W, Grundmann R, Hulme M, Raman S, Kershaw EH, Tsouvalis J (2017) Beyond counting climate consensus. Environ Commun 11:723–730.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2017.1333965 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pidgeon N (2012) Public understanding of, and attitudes to, climate change: UK and international perspectives and policy. Clim Pol 12:S85–S106.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2012.702982 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pidgeon N, Fischhoff B (2011) The role of social and decision sciences in communicating uncertain climate risks. Nat Clim Chang 1:35–41.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1080 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pielke RA Jr (2007) The honest broker: making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Poortinga W, Spence A, Whitmarsh L, Capstick S, Pidgeon NF (2011) Uncertain climate: an investigation into public scepticism about anthropogenic climate change. Glob Environ Chang 21:1015–1024.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.03.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Porter JJ, Dessai S (2017) Mini-me: why do climate scientists’ misunderstand users and their needs? Environ Sci Pol 77:9–14.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.07.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rumsfeld D (2002) Defense.gov News transcript. http://archive.defense.gov/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=2636. Accessed 9 April 2018
  65. Russell M, Boulton G, Clarke P, Eyton D, Norton J (2010) The independent climate change E-mails review. University of East Anglia, UKGoogle Scholar
  66. Schneider SH, Kuntz-Duriseti K (2002) Uncertainty and climate change policy. In: Schneider SH, Rosencraz A, Nile JO (eds) climate change policy: a survey. Island press, Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  67. Shackley S, Wynne B (1996) Representing uncertainty in global climate change science and policy: boundary-ordering devices and authority. Sci Technol Hum Values 21:275–302.  https://doi.org/10.1177/F016224399602100302 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sharman A (2015) The impact of controversy on the production of scientific knowledge. Working paper no. 207, Grantham research institute on climate change and the environmentGoogle Scholar
  69. Shuckburgh E, Robison R, Pidgeon N (2012) Climate science, the public and the news media. Living with Environmental Change, SwindonGoogle Scholar
  70. Smith LA, Stern N (2011) Uncertainty in science and its role in climate policy. Phil Trans R Soc A 369:1–24.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2011.0149 Google Scholar
  71. Spiegelhalter D (2017) Risk and uncertainty communication. Ann Rev Stat Appl 4:31–60.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-statistics-010814-020148 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Spruijt P, Knol AB, Vasileiadou E, Devilee J, Lebret E, Petersen AC (2014) Roles of scientists as policy advisers on complex issues: a literature review. Environ Sci Policy 40:16–25.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.03.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sterman JD, Sweeney LB (2007) Understanding public complacency about climate change: adults’ mental models of climate change violate conservation of matter. Clim Chang 80:213–238.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9107-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Stirling A (2010) Keep it complex. Nature 468:1029–1031.  https://doi.org/10.1038/4681029a CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. UK Parliament (2010) Science and technology committee—eighth report: the disclosure of climate data from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia. The Stationary Office Limited, LondonGoogle Scholar
  76. Van der Sluijs JP (2005) Uncertainty as a monster in the science-policy interface: four coping strategies. Water Sci Technol 52:87–92.  https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2005.0155 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Whitmarsh L (2011) Scepticism and uncertainty about climate change; dimensions, determinants and change over time. Glob Environ Chang 21:690–700.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wynne B (1992) Uncertainty and environmental learning: reconceiving science and policy in the preventive paradigm. Glob Environ Chang 2:111–112.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-3780(92)90017-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Yohe G, Oppenheimer M (2011) Evaluation, characterization, and communication of uncertainty by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—an introductory essay. Clim Change 108:629–663.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0176-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.South Asia Representative of the International Rice Research InstituteIRRI India OfficeNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations