Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Physical and economic bias in climate change research: a scientometric study of IPCC Third Assessment Report

Climatic Change volume 108, pages 1–22 (2011)Cite this article

Abstract

This study demonstrates that IPCC Third Assessment Report is strongly dominated by Natural sciences, especially the Earth sciences. The Social sciences are dominated by Economics. The IPCC assessment also results in the separation of the Earth, Biological and Social sciences. The integration that occurs is mainly between closely related scientific fields. The research community consequently imposes a physical and economic bias and a separation of scientific fields that the IPCC reproduces in the policy sphere. It is argued that this physical and economic bias distorts a comprehensive understanding of climate change and that the weak integration of scientific fields hinders climate change from being fully addressed as an integral environmental and social problem. If climate change is to be understood, evaluated and responded to in its fullness, the IPCC must broaden its knowledge base and challenge the anthropocentric worldview that places humans outside of nature.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  • Agrawala S (1998a) Context and early origins of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Clim Change 39(4):605–620

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agrawala S (1998b) Structural and process history of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Clim Change 39(4):621–642

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baede APM, Ahlonsou E, Ding Y, Schimel D (2001) The climate system: an overview. In: Houghton JT, Ding Y, Griggs DJ, Noguer M, van der Linden PJ, Dai X, Maskell K, Johnson CA (eds) IPCC, 2001: climate change 2001: the scientific basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 881

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck U (1992) Risk society: towards a new modernity. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Boehmer-Christiansen S (1994a) Global climate protection policy: the limits of scientific advice, part 1. Glob Environ Change 4(2):140–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boehmer-Christiansen S (1994b) Global climate protection policy: the limits of scientific advice, part 2. Glob Environ Change 4(3):185–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boehmer-Christiansen S (1997) A winning coalition of advocacy: climate research, bureaucracy and “alternative” fuels: who is driving climate change policy? Energy Policy 25(4):439–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Börner K, Chen C, Boyack KW (2003) Visualizing knowledge domains. Annu Rev Inf Sci Technol 37(1):179–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyack KW, Klavans R, Börner K (2005) Mapping the backbone of science. Scientometrics 64:351–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carolan M (2008) The bright- and blind-spots of science: why objective knowledge is not enough to resolve environmental controversies. Critical Sociology 34(5):725–740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catton W, Dunlap R (1978) Environmental sociology: a new paradigm. Am Sociol 13:41–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen S, Demeritt D, Robinson J, Rothman D (1998) Climate change and sustainable development: towards dialogue. Glob Environ Change 8(4):341–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins H (2001) Crown jewels and rough diamonds: the source of science’s authority. In: Labinger J, Collins H (eds) The one culture? A conversation about science. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Crutzen PJ (2002) Geology of mankind—the anthropocene. Nature 415:23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demeritt D (2001) The construction of global warming and the politics of science. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 91(2):307–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards P (2004) “A vast machine”: standards as social technology. Science 304:827–828

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engels A, Ruschenburg T (2008) The uneven spread of global science: patterns of international collaboration in global environmental change research. Sci Public Policy 3:5

    Google Scholar 

  • Engels A, Ruschenburg T, Weingart P (2005) Recent internationalization of global environmental change research in Germany and the US. Scientometrics 62:67–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleming JR (1998) Historical perspectives on climate change. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Galison P, Stump DJ (eds) (1996) The disunity of science. Boundaries, contexts and power. Stanford University Press, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M (1994) The new production of knowledge. The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. SAGE, Stockholm

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart DM, Victor DG (1993) Scientific elites and the making of US policy for climate change research, 1957–74. Soc Stud Sci 23(4):643–680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hess D (1997) Science studies: an advanced introduction. New York University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hjörland B, Nicolaisen J (2005) Bradford’s law of scattering: ambiguities in the concept of subject. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on conceptions of library and information science, vol 96, pp 106

  • IPCC (1998) Principles governing IPCC work. IPCC 14th session. IPCC, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2001a) Climate change 2001: the scientific basis. In: Houghton JT, Ding Y, Griggs DJ, Noguer M, van der Linden PJ, Dai X, Maskell K, Johnson CA (eds) Contribution of working group I to the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 881

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2001b) Climate change 2001: impacts, adaptation & vulnerability. In: McCarthy, Canziani OF, Leary NA, Dokken DJ, White KS (eds) Contribution of working group II to the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, UK, pp 1000

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2001c) Climate change 2001: mitigation. In: McCarthy JJ, Canziani OF, Leary NA, Dokken DJ, White KS (eds) Contribution of working group II to the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, UK, pp 1000

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2007a) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 996

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2007b) Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. In: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE (eds) Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 976

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2007c) Climate change 2007: mitigation. In: Metz B, Davidson OR, Bosch PR, Dave R, Meyer LA (eds) Contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp XXX

    Google Scholar 

  • Janssen MA, Schoon ML, Börner K (2006) Scholarly networks on resilience, vulnerability and adaptation within the human dimension of global environmental change. Glob Environ Change 16:240–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jappe A (2007) Explaining international collaboration in global environmental change research. Scientometrics 71(3):367–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff S, Wynne B (1998) Science and decisionmaking. In: Rayner S, Malone E (eds) The societal framework. Human choice and climate change, vol 1. Battelle, Columbus, pp 1–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein JT (1990) Interdisciplinarity. History, theory and practice. Wayne State University Press, Detroit

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein JT (1996) Crossing boundaries: knowledge, disciplinarities, and interdisciplinarities. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville

    Google Scholar 

  • Knorr Cetina KD (1999) Epistemic cultures. How the sciences make knowledge. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn TS (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwa TS (2005) Local ecologies, global science: discourses and strategies of the international geosphere–biosphere programme. Soc Stud Sci 35:923–950

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamb HH (1982) Climate, history and the modern world. Methuen, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lenhard J, Lucking H, Schechheimer H (2006) Expert knowledge, mode-2 and scientific disciplines: two contrasting views. Sci Public Policy 33(5):341–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lever-Tracy C (2008) Global warming and sociology. Curr Sociol 56:445–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller C (2004) Climate science and the making of a global political order. In: Jasanoff S (ed) States of knowledge: the co-production of science and the social order. Routledge, London, pp 46–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Moya-Anegón Fd, Vargas-Quesada B, Herrero-Solana V, Chinchilla-Rodríguez Z, Corera-Álvarez E, Munoz-Fernández FJ (2004) A new technique for building maps of large scientific domains based on the cocitation of classes and categories. Scientometrics 61(1):129–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Najam A, Rahman AA, Huq S, Sokona Y (2003) Integrating sustainable development into the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Policy 3S1:9–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M (2001) Re-thinking science. In: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Polity Press, Cambridge, Malden

    Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheimer N, Webster A (2007) The limits of consensus. Science 317:1505–1506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pielke RA, Sarewitz D (2005) Bringing society back into the climate debate. Popul Environ 26(3):255–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rayner S, Malone E (1998) Ten suggestions for policymakers. In: Rayner S, Malone E (eds) Human choice and climate change. Battelle, Columbus, Ohio

    Google Scholar 

  • Risbey J (2007) The new climate discourse: alarmist or alarming? Glob Environ Change 18:26–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosa EA, Dietz T (1998) Climate change and society: speculation, construction and scientific investigation. Int Sociol 13:421–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarewitz D (2004) How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environ Sci Policy 7(5):385–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider S (2009) Science as a contact sport: inside the battle to save earth’s climate. National Geographic

  • Shackley S, Wynne B (1996) Representing uncertainty in global climate change science and policy: boundary-ordering devices and authority. Sci Technol Human Values 21:275–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shackley S, Young P, Parkinson S, Wynne B (1998) Uncertainty, complexity and concepts of good science in climate change modelling: are GCMs the best tools? Clim Change 38(2):159–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanhill G (2001) The growth of climate change science: a scientometric study. Clim Change 48:515–524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swart R, Robinson J, Cohen S (2003) Climate change and sustainable development: expanding the options. Climate Policy 3(S1):19–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swart R, Bernstein L, Ha-Duong M, Petersen A (2009) Agreeing to disagree: uncertainty management in assessing climate change, impacts and responses by the IPCC. Clim Change 92:1–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Storch H, Stehr N (2000) Climate change in perspective. Nature 405:615

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weingart P, Stehr N (eds) (2000) Practising interdisciplinarity. University of Toronto Press

  • Yearley S (2008) Nature and the environment in science and technology studies. In: Hackett E, Amsterdamska O, Lynch M, Wajcman J (eds) The handbook of science and technology studies, 3rd edn. MIT, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Young TS (2004) Institutions and the growth of knowledge: evidence from international environmental regimes. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 4(2):215–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Human Ecology, School of Global Studies, University of Gothenburg, SE 40530, Göteborg, Sweden

    Andreas Bjurström & Merritt Polk

Authors
  1. Andreas Bjurström
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Merritt Polk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreas Bjurström.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bjurström, A., Polk, M. Physical and economic bias in climate change research: a scientometric study of IPCC Third Assessment Report. Climatic Change 108, 1–22 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0018-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0018-8

Keywords

search

Navigation