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


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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1


  1. 1.

    Climate change sceptic is the term used throughout this paper to denote those whose views range from outright denial of man-made climate change as an observable phenomenon to those who, though accepting that climate change may be happening, do not accept that a case has been made for urgent action (see below).

  2. 2.

    This confidence shown by UK climate scientists in the predictive skill of climate modelling was used to secure government funding support (see Mahony and Hulme 2016).

  3. 3.

    The author coordinated the DECC’s scientific response to the ASA adjudication. The exchanges between DECC and ASA at one point reached somewhat absurdist proportions in respect of delineating what kind of statements could or could not justify the use of the phrase “will happen” and what kind of subjective probabilities ought to be assigned to these kinds of statements.

  4. 4.

    Recently, however, the BBC has introduced new guidelines for coverage of the climate change debate wherein it asked staff to be aware of false balance and stated that it was not necessary to include outright deniers of climate change. (

  5. 5.

    Arguably Knightian uncertainty is of most interest in climate change science as it concerns conditional statements about what would happen if a certain scenario transpires and about which there is no prior information (Knight 1921).

  6. 6.

    Smith and Stern (2011) argue that there must be room for speculation by scientists about what future states of the world would be like and that this kind of speculation is of value to policy makers e.g. what a world that was on average 5 °C warmer than today would look like.

  7. 7.

    A manifestation of the belief widely held by policy makers in the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change that the scientific case for climate change had already been made was the effort made to close down the Hadley Centre Climate Research Programme as it was felt that a government-funded research programme on climate modelling was no longer necessary. Two consecutive reviews were initiated. However, both reviews concluded that the Hadley Centre provided “essential and world-leading climate modelling services to Government.” (Government Office for Science 2010).

  8. 8.

    In one briefing exchange with a Minister during the “Climategate” episode where he was to appear on a major UK TV current affairs programme and also appear against a well-known climate sceptic, the author explained that the temperature projections in the IPCC 4th Assessment Report for the A1F1 (high fossil fuel) and B1 (clean energy technologies) SRES scenarios did not start to diverge much until the 2040s. This came as a surprise to the Minister and brought home the point that action taken now may not have any observable impact for decades as the temperature trajectories were similar for both scenarios until then. A politically challenging argument to make.


  1. Adler CE, Hirsch Hadorn G (2014) The IPCC and treatment of uncertainties: topics and sources of dissensus. WIREs Clim Change 5:663–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Advertising Standards Authority (2010) Case number A09–106458/JA. (This adjudication has now been archived on the ASA website but can be found at Accessed 9 September 2016

  3. Australian Public Service Commission (2007) Tackling wicked problems: a public policy perspective. Accessed 31 August 2016

  4. Australian Public Service Commission (2009) Challenges of evidence based policy making. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. BBC News (2010) Climate scepticism ‘on the rise’ BBC poll shows. 7 February 2010. Accessed 31 August 2016

  7. Booker C (2009) Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation. The telegraph. 28 November 2009 Accessed 6 September 2016

  8. Boykoff MT (2010) Who speaks for the climate? Making sense of media reporting on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  9. Boyne GA, Meier KJ (2009) Environmental turbulence, organizational stability, and public service performance. Adm Soc 40:799–824.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Circle-2 FP7 ERA-Net (2010) Uncertainties Workshop Proceedings.$clientServletPath%7D/?newsId=194&fileName=CIRCLE_2_WP4_Proceedings___Uncertanties_.pdf. Accessed 31 August 2016

  14. Climate Change Act 2008. The Stationary Office Limited, London

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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, 469-506

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Doubleday R and Wilsdon J (ed.) (2013) Future direction for science advice in Whitehall. Centre for Science and Policy. Accessed 31 August 2016

  20. Fischer D (2013) “Dark Money” Funds Climate Change Denial Effort Scientific American. The Daily Climate. 23 December 2013 Accessed 10 September 2016

  21. Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1990) Uncertainty and quality in science for policy. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  22. Garfield R (2013) False equivalence: how ‘balance’ makes the media dangerously dumb. The Guardian. 11 October 2013 Accessed 9 September 2016

  23. Gillespie E (2010) Climate change adverts help take debate among public back several years. The Guardian 17 March 2010 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, London

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hallsworth M, Parker S, Rutter J (2011) Policy making in the real world: evidence and analysis. Institute of Government, London

    Google Scholar 

  26. Handmer J, Proudley B (2011) Communicating uncertainty via probabilities: the case of weather forecasts. Environmental Hazards 7:79–87.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hulme M (2009) Why we disagree about climate change: understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  29. InterAcademy Council (2010) Review of the IPCC: an evaluation of the procedures and processes of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 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, Cambridge

  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, Cambridge

  32. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2005) Guidance notes for Lead authors of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on addressing uncertainties. IPCC, Geneva

    Google 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, Switzerland

  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, Switzerland

  35. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Houghton J T (1990) IPCC first assessment report. World Meteorological Organisation, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  36. Jasanoff S (1990) The fifth branch: science advisors as policymakers. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google 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. . 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Jowit J (2010) Sharp decline in public’s belief in climate threat, British poll reveals. The Guardian 23 February 2010. Accessed 10 September 2016

  40. Knight FH (1921) Risk, uncertainty and profit. Houghton Mifflin, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  41. Koonin S (2014) Climate science is not settled. Wall Street J 19 September 2014. 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 York

    Google Scholar 

  43. Laing A (2010) Climategate ‘Professor Phil Jones’ considered suicide over email scandal. The telegraph. 7 February 2010 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Lawson N (2014) The trouble with climate change. Global Warming Policy Foundation, London

    Google 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 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Mahony M, Hulme M (2016) Modelling and the nation: institutionalising climate prediction in the UK, 1988–92. Minerva 54:445–447.

    Article  Google 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, Geneva

    Google 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 Accessed 6 September 2016

  51. Moore M (2010) Government rebuked over global warming nursery rhyme adverts. The Telegraph. 14 March 2010 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 Organization

  53. NASA (2016) 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. 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. 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, UK

    Google Scholar 

  57. Pearce F (2010) Climate change debate overheated after sceptic grasped ‘hockey stick’. The Guardian. 9 February 2010 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Pidgeon N (2012) Public understanding of, and attitudes to, climate change: UK and international perspectives and policy. Clim Pol 12:S85–S106.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Pielke RA Jr (2007) The honest broker: making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Porter JJ, Dessai S (2017) Mini-me: why do climate scientists’ misunderstand users and their needs? Environ Sci Pol 77:9–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Rumsfeld D (2002) News transcript. 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, UK

    Google 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, USA

    Google 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.

    Article  Google 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 environment

  69. Shuckburgh E, Robison R, Pidgeon N (2012) Climate science, the public and the news media. Living with Environmental Change, Swindon

    Google Scholar 

  70. Smith LA, Stern N (2011) Uncertainty in science and its role in climate policy. Phil Trans R Soc A 369:1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Spiegelhalter D (2017) Risk and uncertainty communication. Ann Rev Stat Appl 4:31–60.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Stirling A (2010) Keep it complex. Nature 468:1029–1031.

    CAS  Article  Google 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, London

    Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Whitmarsh L (2011) Scepticism and uncertainty about climate change; dimensions, determinants and change over time. Glob Environ Chang 21:690–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Wynne B (1992) Uncertainty and environmental learning: reconceiving science and policy in the preventive paradigm. Glob Environ Chang 2:111–112.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nafees Meah.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Meah, N. Climate uncertainty and policy making—what do policy makers want to know?. Reg Environ Change 19, 1611–1621 (2019).

Download citation


  • Climate change
  • Science policy
  • Uncertainty
  • Science communication