The IPCC and the new map of science and politics
暂无分享,去创建一个
[1] Governing by expertise: the contested politics of (accounting for) land-based mitigation in a new climate agreement , 2017, International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics.
[2] S. Jasanoff,et al. The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. , 1991 .
[3] Gary W. Yohe,et al. Evaluation, characterization, and communication of uncertainty by the intergovernmental panel on climate change—an introductory essay , 2011 .
[4] Rolf Lidskog,et al. Boundary organizations and environmental governance : Performance, institutional design, and conceptual development , 2017 .
[5] S. Beck,et al. The challenges of building cosmopolitan climate expertise: the case of Germany , 2012 .
[6] Noam Obermeister,et al. From dichotomy to duality: Addressing interdisciplinary epistemological barriers to inclusive knowledge governance in global environmental assessments , 2017 .
[7] The intergovernmental panal on climate change: consensual knowledge and global politics , 1997 .
[8] Cathleen Fogel. Biotic Carbon Sequestration and the Kyoto Protocol: The Construction of Global Knowledge by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , 2005 .
[9] Gregor Betz,et al. In defence of the value free ideal , 2013 .
[10] Keywan Riahi,et al. Open discussion of negative emissions is urgently needed , 2017 .
[11] M. Hajer. A media storm in the world risk society: enacting scientific authority in the IPCC controversy (2009–10) , 2012 .
[12] John Robinson,et al. Relevant But Not Prescriptive , 2004 .
[13] Self-Governance and Peer Review in Science-for-Policy: The Case of the IPCC Second Assessment Report , 2001 .
[14] Raffael Himmelsbach. How scientists advising the European Commission on research priorities view climate engineering proposals , 2018 .
[15] Christopher B. Field,et al. Mapping the climate change challenge , 2016 .
[16] Brian Wynne,et al. Public uptake of science: a case for institutional reflexivity , 1993 .
[17] Maarten A. Hajer,et al. Authoritative Governance: Policy Making in the Age of Mediatization , 2009 .
[18] S. Beck. Between Tribalism and Trust: The IPCC Under the "Public Microscope" , 2012 .
[19] G. Peters,et al. The trouble with negative emissions , 2016, Science.
[20] Epistemic Subsidiarity – Coexistence, Cosmopolitanism, Constitutionalism , 2013, European Journal of Risk Regulation.
[21] M. Mahony. Boundary spaces: Science, politics and the epistemic geographies of climate change in Copenhagen, 2009 , 2013 .
[23] M. Paterson,et al. Narrowing the Climate Field: The Symbolic Power of Authors in the IPCC's Assessment of Mitigation , 2017 .
[24] O. Geden. The Paris Agreement and the inherent inconsistency of climate policymaking , 2016 .
[25] R. Lidskog,et al. When Does Science Matter? International Relations Meets Science and Technology Studies , 2015, Global Environmental Politics.
[26] R. Hoppe. Lost in translation? Boundary work in making climate change governable , 2010 .
[27] F. Biermann. Whose experts? The role of geographic representation in global environmental assessments. , 2006 .
[28] S. Rahmstorf,et al. Three years to safeguard our climate , 2017, Nature.
[29] D. Victor,et al. The Regime Complex for Climate Change , 2010, Perspectives on Politics.
[30] V. Meulen,et al. The Politics of Scientific Advice: European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC) , 2011 .
[31] Sheila Jasanoff,et al. Cosmopolitan Knowledge: Climate Science and Global Civic Epistemology , 2011 .
[32] H. Hughes. Bourdieu and the IPCC’s Symbolic Power , 2015, Global Environmental Politics.
[33] Mike Hulme,et al. Climate change: What do we know about the IPCC? , 2010 .
[34] J. Montana. Accommodating consensus and diversity in environmental knowledge production: Achieving closure through typologies in IPBES , 2017 .
[35] Post-truth? , 2017, Social studies of science.
[36] Kevin Anderson,et al. Duality in climate science , 2015 .
[37] B. Wynne,et al. One world or two? Science–policy interactions in the climate field , 2018 .
[38] A. Elzinga. The science-society contract in historical transformation: with special reference to “epistemic drift” , 1997 .
[39] Corinne Le Quéré,et al. Betting on negative emissions , 2014 .
[40] O. Edenhofer,et al. Cartography of pathways: A new model for environmental policy assessments , 2015 .
[41] The treatment of divergent viewpoints in global environmental assessments , 2017 .
[42] Oliver Geden,et al. Define limits for temperature overshoot targets , 2017, Nature Geoscience.
[43] Mike Hulme,et al. Epistemic geographies of climate change , 2018 .
[44] D. Winickoff,et al. The problem of epistemic jurisdiction in global governance: The case of sustainability standards for biofuels , 2017, Social studies of science.
[45] Amy Dahan-Dalmédico. Climate expertise: between scientific credibility and geopolitical imperatives , 2008 .
[46] R. Lidskog,et al. Stakeholder Engagement in the Making: IPBES Legitimization Politics , 2017, Global Environmental Politics.
[47] E. Parson,et al. Opinion: Climate policymakers and assessments must get serious about climate engineering , 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
[48] W. Pearce,et al. Communicating climate change: conduits, content, and consensus , 2015 .
[49] Carolien Kroeze,et al. Moving boundaries in transboundary air pollution; co-production of science and policy under the convention on long range transboundary air pollution , 2006 .
[50] Alfred Moore,et al. Should We Aim for Consensus? , 2010, Episteme.
[51] F. Biermann,et al. The authority of science in sustainability governance: A structured comparison of six science institutions engaged with the Sustainable Development Goals , 2017 .
[52] S. Beck,et al. The IPCC and the politics of anticipation , 2017 .
[53] K. Abbott. The Transnational Regime Complex for Climate Change , 2012 .
[54] M. Zürn. From constitutional rule to loosely coupled spheres of liquid authority: a reflexive approach , 2017, International Theory.
[55] Göran Sundqvist,et al. Formalization and separation: A systematic basis for interpreting approaches to summarizing science for climate policy , 2015, Social studies of science.
[56] M. Lynch. STS, symmetry and post-truth , 2017, Social studies of science.
[57] Eva Lövbrand,et al. In pursuit of carbon accountability: the politics of REDD+ measuring, reporting and verification systems , 2012 .
[58] Esteve Corbera,et al. Patterns of authorship in the IPCC Working Group III report , 2016 .
[59] Stefan C. Aykut,et al. Globalising the Climate : COP21 and the climatisation of global debates , 2017 .
[60] Peter Pelzer,et al. 2050—An Energetic Odyssey: Understanding ‘Techniques of Futuring’ in the transition towards renewable energy , 2018, Energy Research & Social Science.
[61] M. Fridahl,et al. Socio-political prioritization of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage , 2017 .
[62] Sujatha Raman,et al. Science advice for global challenges: learning from trade-offs in the IPCC , 2018 .
[63] D. Lindenmayer. Merchants of Doubt. How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming , 2012 .
[64] E. Ostrom. Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems , 2010, American Economic Review.
[65] D. Guston. Boundary Organizations in Environmental Policy and Science: An Introduction , 2001 .
[66] T. Skodvin. Revised Rules of Procedure for the IPCC Process , 2000 .
[67] Mike Hulme,et al. Framing global biodiversity: IPBES between Mother Earth and ecosystem services , 2015 .
[68] M. Kearnes,et al. Remaking participation : science, environment and emergent publics , 2016 .
[69] Climate change and the geographies of objectivity: the case of the IPCC's burning embers diagram , 2015 .
[70] S. Beck,et al. The politics of anticipation: the IPCC and the negative emissions technologies experience , 2018, Global Sustainability.
[71] Tora Skodvin,et al. Structure and agent in the scientific diplomacy of climate change : an empirical case study of science-policy interaction in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , 2000 .
[72] Q. Schiermeier,et al. Four challenges facing newly elected climate chief , 2015, Nature.
[73] Experiment earth: responsible innovation in geoengineering , 2016 .
[74] Stephan Lewandowsky,et al. Seepage: Climate change denial and its effect on the scientific community , 2015 .
[75] S. Jasanoff,et al. No funeral bells: Public reason in a ‘post-truth’ age , 2017, Social studies of science.
[76] Ingrid J. Visseren-Hamakers,et al. Envisioning REDD+ in a post‐Paris era: between evolving expectations and current practice , 2017 .
[77] Mike Hulme,et al. Problems with making and governing global kinds of knowledge. , 2010 .
[78] Arthur Petersen,et al. Agreeing to disagree: uncertainty management in assessing climate change, impacts and responses by the IPCC , 2009 .
[79] Christopher B. Field,et al. Unleashing expert judgment in assessment , 2017 .
[80] S. Shackley,et al. IPCC gazing and the interpretative social sciences: A comment on Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen's: ‘Global climate protection policy: the limits of scientific advice’ , 1995 .
[81] Yulia Yamineva,et al. Lessons from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on inclusiveness across geographies and stakeholders , 2017 .
[82] N. Oreskes. How earth science has become a social science , 2015 .
[83] D. Victor. Climate change: Embed the social sciences in climate policy , 2015, Nature.
[84] B. Laurent. Political experiments that matter: Ordering democracy from experimental sites , 2016, Social studies of science.
[85] S. Bremer,et al. Co‐production in climate change research: reviewing different perspectives , 2017 .
[86] D. Barben. Changing regimes of science and politics: Comparative and transnational perspectives for a world in transition , 2007 .
[87] R. Merton. The Normative Structure of Science , 1973 .
[88] Jack Stilgoe,et al. Experiment Earth: Responsible Innovation In Geoengineering , 2015 .
[89] M. Hilden,et al. The challenges of monitoring national climate policy: learning lessons from the EU , 2018 .
[90] Angela Oels,et al. Rendering climate change governable: From biopower to advanced liberal government? , 2005 .
[91] B. Wynne. Risk and Environment as Legitimatory Discourses of Technology: Reflexivity Inside Out? , 2002 .
[92] L. Luton. Climate Scientists and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Evolving Dynamics of a Belief in Political Neutrality , 2015 .
[93] N. Vaughan,et al. Deliberative Mapping of options for tackling climate change: Citizens and specialists ‘open up’ appraisal of geoengineering , 2014, Public understanding of science.
[94] Aarti Gupta,et al. Evoking equity as a rationale for solar geoengineering research? Scrutinizing emerging expert visions of equity , 2018, International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics.
[95] S. Beck. Moving beyond the linear model of expertise? IPCC and the test of adaptation , 2011 .
[96] J. Vervoort,et al. Anticipating climate futures in a 1.5 °C era: the link between foresight and governance , 2018 .
[97] Adora M. Alvarez,et al. Introduction , 2018, Theoretical and Experimental Chemistry.
[98] Stefan C. Aykut. Taking a wider view on climate governance: moving beyond the ‘iceberg,’ the ‘elephant,’ and the ‘forest’ , 2016 .
[99] R. Eckersley. Moving Forward in the Climate Negotiations: Multilateralism or Minilateralism? , 2012, Global Environmental Politics.
[100] Mike Hulme,et al. 1.5 [deg]C and climate research after the Paris Agreement , 2016 .
[101] Brian C. O'Neill,et al. The Limits of Consensus , 2007, Science.
[102] Hélène Guillemot. The necessary and inaccessible 1.5°C objective : A turning point in the relations between climate science and politics? , 2017 .
[103] Holly Jean Buck,et al. Rapid scale-up of negative emissions technologies: social barriers and social implications , 2016, Climatic Change.
[104] M. Lang,et al. Rethinking IPCC Expertise from a Multi-actor Perspective , 2018 .
[105] Naomi Oreskes,et al. The rapid disintegration of projections: The West Antarctic Ice Sheet and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , 2012, Social studies of science.
[106] R. Eckersley. Geopolitan Democracy in the Anthropocene , 2017 .
[107] A. Patwardhan,et al. INEA editorial: Achieving 1.5 °C and climate justice , 2018, International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics.
[108] Clark A. Miller. Hybrid Management: Boundary Organizations, Science Policy, and Environmental Governance in the Climate Regime , 2001 .
[109] M. Hulme,et al. Modelling and the Nation: Institutionalising Climate Prediction in the UK, 1988–92 , 2016, Minerva.
[110] Institutional Accountability of Nonstate Actors in the UNFCCC: Exit, Voice, and Loyalty , 2017 .
[111] B. Siebenhüner. The changing role of nation states in international environmental assessments—the case of the IPCC , 2003 .
[112] W. Clark,et al. Boundary work for sustainable development: Natural resource management at the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
[113] T. Gieryn. Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional , 1983 .
[114] A. Stirling. “Opening Up” and “Closing Down” , 2008 .
[115] Science as a “fixed point”? Quantification and boundary objects in international climate politics , 2017 .
[116] S. Boehmer-Christiansen. Global climate protection policy: the limits of scientific advice: Part 1 , 1994 .
[117] David Demeritt,et al. The Construction of Global Warming and the Politics of Science , 2001 .
[118] M. Kandlikar,et al. 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 , 2011 .
[119] R. Grundmann. Climate change and knowledge politics , 2007 .
[120] Bentley B. Allan. Producing the Climate: States, Scientists, and the Constitution of Global Governance Objects , 2016, International Organization.
[121] Nondemarcated Spaces of Knowledge‐Informed Policy Making: How Useful Is the Concept of Boundary Organization in IR? , 2017 .
[122] J. Morin,et al. Boundary organizations in regime complexes: a social network profile of IPBES , 2017 .
[123] Shardul Agrawala,et al. Context and Early Origins of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , 1998 .
[124] Cerian Gibbes,et al. Local knowledge in climate adaptation research: moving knowledge frameworks from extraction to co‐production , 2017 .
[125] William F. Lamb,et al. Fast growing research on negative emissions , 2017 .
[126] S. Jasanoff. States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and the Social Order , 2004 .
[127] P. Haas. The epistemic authority of solution-oriented global environmental assessments , 2017 .
[128] Danièle Revel,et al. The Transnational Regime Complex for Climate Change , 2011 .
[129] Hoesung Lee,et al. Turning the focus to solutions , 2015, Science.
[130] Rose Cairns,et al. Lost in the problem: the role of boundary organisations in the governance of climate change , 2013 .
[131] G. Luderer,et al. Energy system transformations for limiting end-of-century warming to below 1.5 °C , 2015 .
[132] S. Randalls. History of the 2°C climate target , 2010 .
[133] F. Pearce. The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth About Global Warming , 2010 .
[134] R. Moss. The IPCC: policy relevant (not driven) scientific assessment , 1995 .
[135] S. Rayner. What might Evans‐Pritchard have made of two degrees? , 2016 .
[136] Yola Georgiadou,et al. Technical knowledge, discursive spaces and politics at the science - policy interface , 2013 .
[137] Art Dewulf,et al. What does policy-relevant global environmental knowledge do? The cases of climate and biodiversity , 2016 .
[138] James D. Ford,et al. Including indigenous knowledge and experience in IPCC assessment reports , 2016 .
[139] D. Jamieson,et al. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Challenges and Opportunities , 2017 .
[140] T. Forsyth. Critical Political Ecology: The Politics of Environmental Science , 2002 .
[141] Carol Morris,et al. Cultural spaces of climate , 2012, Climatic Change.
[142] J. Jabbour,et al. Solution-oriented global environmental assessments: Opportunities and challenges , 2017 .
[143] P. Haas. Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination , 1992, International Organization.
[144] Shardul Agrawala,et al. Climate change. The limits of consensus. , 2007, Science.
[145] Aarti Gupta,et al. De facto governance: how authoritative assessments construct climate engineering as an object of governance , 2019 .