Economics Dictionary of ArgumentsHome
| |||
|
| |||
| IPCC: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a global scientific body established by the United Nations. It assesses and synthesizes scientific research on climate change, providing authoritative reports to policymakers. The IPCC evaluates the impacts, risks, and potential mitigation strategies, serving as a key resource for international climate action and policy formulation. See also International Politics, Climate change, Climate damages, Climate data, Environmental Policy._____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments. | |||
| Author | Concept | Summary/Quotes | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Paul N. Edwards on IPCC - Dictionary of Arguments
Edwards I 585 IPCC/Edwards: Peer review is not a truth machine, automatically separating good science from bad. But the peer review of IPCC assessments differs in several ways from the processes used by scientific journals. First, most of the literature considered during IPCC assessments has already undergone peer review once (at the time of publication). Second, IPCC reports are assessments, not primary science; as a result, IPCC peer review is designed to capture both agreement and disagreement. IPCC rules of procedure specifically direct authors to call legitimate controversies to readers’ attention: “In preparing the first draft, and at subsequent stages of revision after review, Lead Authors should clearly identify disparate views for which there is significant scientific or technical support, together with the relevant arguments. . . . It is important that Reports describe different (possibly controversial) scientific, technical, and socio-economic views on a subject, particularly if they are relevant to the policy debate.”(1) Finally, IPCC review reaches well beyond the scientific community. Unlike peer review for journals, where only expert opinions are solicited, here partisan, non-expert views are deliberately solicited and their concerns addressed (to the extent the scientific framework permits). Despite its imperfections, this exhaustive, multiple-level, highly transparent review process remains the best approach we have for evaluating climate knowledge. It brings controversy within consensus, it limits bias, and it connects the world’s far-flung climate science communities in an ongoing process. This extraordinary process distinguishes climate science from nearly all other scientific arenas, and it warrants my concept of a “climate knowledge infrastructure.” 1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Procedures.” https://www.ipcc.ch/documentation/procedures/ (16.06. 2021) >Emission permits, >Emission reduction credits, >Emission targets, >Emissions, >Emissions trading, >Climate change, >Climate damage, >Energy policy, >Clean Energy Standards, >Climate data, >Climate history, >Climate justice, >Climate periods, >Climate targets, >Climate impact research, >Carbon price, >Carbon price coordination, >Carbon price strategies, >Carbon tax, >Carbon tax strategies._____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. Translations: Dictionary of Arguments The note [Concept/Author], [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] resp. "problem:"/"solution:", "old:"/"new:" and "thesis:" is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition. |
Edwards I Paul N. Edwards A Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data, and the Politics of Global Warming Cambridge 2013 |
||
Authors A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Concepts A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
