Book contents
- The IPCC and the Politics of Writing Climate Change
- The IPCC and the Politics of Writing Climate Change
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Acknowledgements
- Acronyms
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Knowledge, Power and Order in the Construction of Environmental Politics
- 3 Situating the IPCC as a Practice of Writing
- 4 Analysing the IPCC as Actors, Activities and Forms of Authority
- 5 A New Assessment Cycle
- 6 The Order of Scientific Assessment
- 7 The Politics of Approval
- 8 Concluding on the Meaning and Implications of Writing Climate Change
- Appendix: Interview Data
- IPCC References
- Other References
- Index
- References
Other References
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 July 2024
Book contents
- The IPCC and the Politics of Writing Climate Change
- The IPCC and the Politics of Writing Climate Change
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Acknowledgements
- Acronyms
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Knowledge, Power and Order in the Construction of Environmental Politics
- 3 Situating the IPCC as a Practice of Writing
- 4 Analysing the IPCC as Actors, Activities and Forms of Authority
- 5 A New Assessment Cycle
- 6 The Order of Scientific Assessment
- 7 The Politics of Approval
- 8 Concluding on the Meaning and Implications of Writing Climate Change
- Appendix: Interview Data
- IPCC References
- Other References
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The IPCC and the Politics of Writing Climate Change , pp. 181 - 200Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2024
- Creative Commons
This content is Open Access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence CC-BY-NC 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/cclicenses/
References
Other References
Abrahamsen, R. & Williams, M. C. (2011). Security beyond the State: Private Security in International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Adler, E. (1992). The Emergence of Cooperation: National Epistemic Communities and the International Evolution of the Idea of Nuclear Arms Control. International Organization, 46, 101–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adler, E. & Haas, P. M. (1992). Epistemic Communities, World-Order, and the Creation of a Reflective Research-Program – Conclusion. International Organization, 46, 367–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adler, C. E. & Hadorn, G. H. (2014). The IPCC and Treatment of Uncertainties: Topics and Sources of Dissensus: IPCC: Topics and Sources of Dissensus. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 5(5):663–76.Google Scholar
Adler, E. & Bernstein, S. (2005). Knowledge in Power: The Epistemic Construction of Global Governance. In Barnett, M. & Duvall, R., eds., Power and Global Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Adler-Nissen, R. ed. (2013). Bourdieu in International Relations: Rethinking Key Concepts in IR. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Adler-Nissen, R. (2014). Symbolic Power in European Diplomacy: The Struggle between National Foreign Services and the EU’s External Action Service. Review of International Studies, 40(4), 657–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adler-Nissen, R. & Drieschova, A. (2019). Track-Change Diplomacy: Technology, Affordances, and the Practice of International Negotiations. International Studies Quarterly, 63(3), 531–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adler-Nissen, R. & Pouliot, V. (2014). Power in Practice: Negotiating the International Intervention in Libya. European Journal of International Relations, 20(4), 889–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agrawala, S. (1998a). Context and Early Origins of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climatic Change, 39, 605–20.Google Scholar
Agrawala, S. (1998b). Structural and Process History of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climatic Change, 39, 621–42.Google Scholar
Agrawal, S. (1999). Early Science-Policy Interactions in Climate Change: Lessons from the Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases. Global Environmental Change and Policy Dimensions, 9, 157–69.Google Scholar
Allan, B. B. (2017). Producing the Climate: States, Scientists, and the Constitution of Global Governance Objects. International Organization 71(1):131–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allan, A., Antonich, B., Bansard, J., Browne, K., Jones, N., & Luomi, M. (2018). Summary of the Katowice Climate Change Conference: 2–15 December 2018. Earth Negotiations Bulletin, 12 No. 747. Available at: http://enb.iisd.org/climate/cop24/enb/Google Scholar
Altbach, P. G. (2004). Globalisation and the University: Myths and Realities in an Unequal World. Tertiary Education and Management, 10(1), 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Axelrod, M. (2011). Climate Change and Global Fisheries Management: Linking Issues to Protect Ecosystems or to Save Political Interests? Global Environmental Politics, 11(3), 64–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagley, K. (2012). Climate Scientists Face Organized Harassment in US. Bloomberg, 10 September 2012. www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-10/climate-scientists-face-organized-harassment-in-u-s-.html (last accessed 10 September 2012).Google Scholar
Bansard, J., Eni-ibukun, T. A., & Davenport, D. (2021). Summary of the 54th Session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the 14th Session of Working Group I: 26 July–6 August 2021. Earth Negotiations Bulletin, 12(794), 1–27.Google Scholar
Barnett, A. (2008). IPCC Elections: Close Contests. Nature Reports Climate Change, 24 August 2010. Available at: www.nature.com/climate/2008/0810/full/climate.2008.95.html (last accessed 28 April 2010).Google Scholar
Barnett, M. N. & Finnemore, M. (1999). The Politics, Power, and Pathologies of International Organizations. International Organization, 53, 699–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, S. (2006). Does Bureaucracy Really Matter? The Authority of Intergovernmental Treaty Secretariats in Global Environmental Politics. Global Environmental Politics, 6, 23–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Bavel, B., MacDonald, J. P., & Dorough, D. S. (2022). Indigenous Knowledge Systems. In De Pryck, K. & Hulme, M., eds., A Critical Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 116–25.Google Scholar
BBC Four. (2021). Climategate: Science of a Scandal. BBC. Available at: www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000b8p2 (last accessed 22 July 2023).Google Scholar
Beck, S., Forsyth, T., Kohler, P. M., Lahsen, M., & Mahony, M. (2016). The Making of Global Environmental Science and Politics Silke Beck. In Felt, U., Fouché, R., Miller, C. A., & Smith-Doerr, L., eds., The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies 4th Edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1059–86.Google Scholar
Beck, S. & Mahony, M. (2018). The IPCC and the New Map of Science and Politics. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 9, n/a–n/a.Google Scholar
van Beek, L., Oomen, J., Hajer, M., Pelzer, P., & van Vuuren, D. (2022). Navigating the Political: An Analysis of Political Calibration of Integrated Assessment Modelling in Light of the 1.5 °C Goal. Environmental Science & Policy, 133, 193–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, S. (2000). Ideas, Social Structure and the Compromise of Liberal Environmentalism. European Journal of International Relations, 6, 464–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, S. (2001). The Compromise of Liberal Environmentalism. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, S., Betsill, M., Hoffmann, M., & Paterson, M. (2010). A Tale of Two Copenhagens: Carbon Markets and Climate Governance. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 39, 161–73.Google Scholar
Bhandari, M. P. (2020). Getting the Climate Science Facts Right: The Role of the IPCC (1st ed.). Denmark: River Publishers. www.riverpublishers.com/whoweare.phpGoogle Scholar
Biermann, F. (1999). Big Science, Small Impacts – In the South? The Influence of International Environmental Information Institutions on Policy-Making in India. ENRP Discussion Paper E-99-12, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Available at www.hks.harvard.edu/gea/pubs/e-99-12.htm (last accessed 22 August 2012).Google Scholar
Biermann, F. (2000). Science as Power in International Environmental Negotiations: Global Environmental Assessments between North and South. Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs (BCSIA) Discussion Paper 2000–17, Environment and Natural Resources Program, Kennedy School of Government Harvard University 2000. www.hks.harvard.edu/gea/pubs/2000-17.htm (last accessed 22 August 2012).Google Scholar
Biermann, F. (2002). Institutions for Scientific Advice: Global Environmental Assessments and Their Influence in Developing Countries. Global Governance, 8, 195–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biermann, F. & Siebenhüner, B.. (2009). Managers of Global Change: The Influence of International Environmental Bureaucracies. Cambridge, MA; London: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biermann, F. & Möller, I. (2019). Rich Man’s Solution? Climate Engineering Discourses and the Marginalization of the Global South. International Environmental Agreements, 19, 151–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bigo, D. (2006). Global (in)Security: The Field of the Professionals of Unease Management and the Ban-Opticon. In Solomon, J. & Sakai, N., eds., Traces: A Multilingual Series of Cultural Theory. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University, 109–57.Google Scholar
Bigo, D. (2011). Pierre Bourdieu and International Relations: Power of Practices, Practices of Power. International Political Sociology, 5, 225–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bigo, D & Madsen, M. R. (2011). Introduction to Symposium ‘A Different Reading of the International’: Pierre Bourdieu and International Studies. International Political Sociology, 5, 219–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjurström, A & Polk, M. (2011). Physical and Economic Bias in Climate Change Research: A Scientometric Study of IPCC Third Assessment Report. Climatic Change, 108, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, R. (2009). E-mail Row ‘to Affect Copenhagen’. BBC (December 3 2009). Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8392611.stm (last accessed 13 July 2023).Google Scholar
Blicharska, M., Smithers, R. J., Kuchler, M., Agrawal, G. K., Gutiérrez, J. M., Hassanali, A., Huq, S., Koller, S. H., Marjit, S., Mshinda, H. M., Masjuki, H. H., Solomons, N. W., Staden, J. V., & Mikusiński, G. (2017). Steps to Overcome the North–South Divide in Research Relevant to Climate Change Policy and Practice. Nature Climate Change, 7(1), 21–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodansky, D. M. (1993). The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: A Commentary. Yale Journal of International Law, 18, 451–558.Google Scholar
Boehmer-Christiansen, S. (1994a). Global Climate Protection Policy: The Limits of Scientific Advice Part 1. Global Environmental Change, 4(2), 140–59.Google Scholar
Boehmer-Christiansen, S. (1994b). Global Climate Protection Policy: The Limits of Scientific Advice Part 2. Global Environmental Change, 4(2), 185–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boehmer-Christiansen, S. (1995a). Britain and the International Panel on Climate Change: The Impacts of Scientific Advice on Global Warming Part I: Integrated Policy Analysis and the Global Dimension. Environmental Politics, 4, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boehmer-Christiansen, S. (1995b). Britain and the International Panel on Climate Change: The Impacts of Scientific Advice on Global Warming Part II: The Domestic Story of the British Response to Climate Change. Environmental Politics, 4, 175–96.Google Scholar
Boehmer-Christiansen, S. & Skea, J. (1994). The Operation and Impacts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Results of a Survey of Participation and Users, STEEP Discussion Paper, Brighton. SPRU.Google Scholar
Bolin, B. (2007). A History of the Science and Politics of Climate Change: The Role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booker, C. (2009). The Questions Dr Pachauri Still Has to Answer. Telegraph, 26 December 2009. Available at: www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6890839/The-questions-Dr-Pachauri-still-has-to-answer.html (last accessed 4 January 2010).Google Scholar
Borland, R., Morrel, R., & Watson, V. (2018). Southern Agency: Navigating Local and Global Imperatives in Climate Research. Global Environmental Politics, 18(3), 47–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borione, D. & Ripert, J.. (1994). Exercising Common but Differentiated Responsibility. In Mintzer, M. & Leonard, J. A. Q. eds., Negotiating Climate Change: The Inside Story of the Rio Convention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 77–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1986a). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984 (1986 [printing]).Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1986b). The Forms of Capital. In Richardson, J. G., ed., R.J Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 241–58.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1988). Homo Academicus. Cambridge: Polity Press in Association with Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1989). Social Space and Symbolic Power. Sociological Theory, 7(1), 14–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (2001). [1998] Masculine Domination. Translated by R. Nice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. Edited and Introduced by J. B. Thompson. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bowen, K. J., Friel, S., Ebi, K., Butler, C. D., Miller, F., & McMichael, J. D. (2012). Governing for a Healthy Population: Towards an Understanding of How Decision-Making Will Determine Our Global Health in a Changing Climate. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 9, 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyle, S. & Ardill, J. (1989). The Greenhouse Effect: A Practical Guide to Our Changing Climate. Kent, England: New English Library.Google Scholar
Brenton, T. (1994). The Greening of Machiavelli: The Evolution of International Environmental Politics. London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, Energy and Environmental Programme: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Broome, J. (2014). A Philosopher at the IPCC. The Philosophers’ Magazine Archive. (2014, July 1).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broome, J. (2020). Philosophy in the IPCC. In Brister, E. & Frodeman, R., eds., Philosophy for the Real World. London and New York: Routledge, 95–110.Google Scholar
Brown, D. (2010). Climate Scientist Phil Jones Contemplated Suicide over Data Claims. Times, 8 February 2010. Available at: www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7018484.ece (last accessed 8 February 2010).Google Scholar
Bruce, J. P. (1991). The World Climate Programme’s Achievements and Challenges. Proceedings of the Second World Climate Conference. Cambridge University Press, 149–55.Google Scholar
Bruce, J. P., Yi, H., & Haites, E. F. (1996). Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change: Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Butler, S. (2010). Climate Scientists Face Rising Abuse, Threats. 11 June 2011. Available at: www.greenleft.org.au/node/47873 (last accessed 13 June 2011).Google Scholar
Buttel, F. H. (2000). Ecological Modernization as Social Theory. Geoforum, 31, 57–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de la Cadena, M. with Blaser, M., eds. (2018). A World of Many Worlds. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Calhoun, C. J., Li-Puma, E., & Postone, M. (1993). Bourdieu: Critical Perspectives. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Campbell, L. M., Hagerman, S., & Gray, N. J.. (2014). Producing Targets for Conservation: Science and Politics at the Tenth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Global Environmental Politics 14: 41–63.Google Scholar
Carrington, D. (2010). IPCC Officials Admit Mistake over Melting Himalayan Glaciers. Guardian (20 January 2010). Available at: www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-himalayan-glaciers-mistake (last accessed 11 May 2011).Google Scholar
Carter, S., Schulz, A., & Yamineva, Y. (2009). Summary of the 31st Session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 26–29 October 2009. Earth Negotiations Bulletin, 12, 441.Google Scholar
Chemnick, J. (2018). Oil Kingdom and a ‘High Priest’ Stall Action for 30 years. E&E News (29 October 2018). Available at: www.eenews.net/articles/oil-kingdom-and-a-high-priest-stall-action-for-30-years/ (last accessed 13 July 2023).Google Scholar
Cohen, S., Demeritt, D., Robinson, J., & Rothman, D. (1998). Climate Change and Sustainable Development: Towards Dialogue. Global Environmental Change, 8(4), 341–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cointe, B. (2022). Scenarios. In De Pryck, K. & Hulme, M., eds., A Critical Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 137–47.Google Scholar
Cointe, B. & Guillemot, H. (2023). ‘A History of the 1.5°C Target’. WIREs Climate Change. E824.Google Scholar
Collins, P. H. (2015). Intersectionality’s Definitional Dilemmas. Annual Review of Sociology, 41(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collyer, F. M. (2016). Global Patterns in the Publishing of Academic Knowledge: Global North, Global South. Current Sociology, 66(1), 56–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Compagnon, D. & Bernstein, S. (2017). Nondemarcated Spaces of Knowledge-Informed Policy Making: How Useful Is the Concept of Boundary Organization in IR? Review of Policy Research, 34, 812–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Confalonieri, U. B. et al. (2007). Human Health. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. In Parry, M. L., ed., Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 391–431.Google Scholar
Conliffe, A. (2011). Combating Ineffectiveness: Climate Change Band Wagoning and the UN Convention to Combat Desertification. Global Environmental Politics, 11(3), 44–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connell, R. (2014). Using Southern Theory: Decolonizing Social Thought in Theory, Research and Application. Planning Theory, 13(2), 210–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connell, R., Pearse, R., Collyer, F., Maia, J. M., & Morrell, R. (2018a). Negotiating with the North: How Southern-Tier Intellectual Workers Deal with the Global Economy of Knowledge. The Sociological Review, 66, 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connell, R., Pearse, R., Collyer, F., Maia, J., & Morrell, R. (2018b). Re-making the Global Economy of Knowledge: Do New Fields of Research Change the Structure of North–South Relations? The British Journal of Sociology, 69, 738–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Coppenolle, H., Blondeel, M., & Van de Graaf, T. (2022). Reframing the Climate Debate: The Origins and Diffusion of Net Zero Pledges. Global Policy, 14(1), 48–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbera, E., Calvet-Mir, L., Hughes, H., & Paterson, M. (2016). Patterns of Authorship in the IPCC Working Group III Report. Nature Climate Change, 6, 94–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Costello, T. (2009). Smeared Scientists Must Still Mend Their Ways. Financial Times, 16 December 2009. Available at: www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0a36733e-ea7a-11de-a9f5-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1 (last accessed 30 March 2023).Google Scholar
Craggs, R. & Mahony, M. (2014). The Geographies of the Conference: Knowledge, Performance and Protest. Geography Compass, 8(6), 414–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davenport, D., Gutiérrez, M., & Yamineva, M. (2008). Summary of the 28th Session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 9–10 April 2008. Earth Negotiations Bulletin, 12, 363.Google Scholar
David-Chavez, D. M. & Gavin, M. C. (2018). A Global Assessment of Indigenous Community Engagement in Climate Research. Environmental Research Letters, 13, 123005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Death, C. (2011). Summit Theatre: Exemplary Governmentality and Environmental Diplomacy in Johannesburg and Copenhagen. Environmental Politics, 20(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DECC. (2010). ‘List of Applicants to the IPCC 5th Assessment Report Submitted by the UK for Consideration by the IPCC’. Available at: www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/what%20we%20do/global%20climate%20change%20and%20energy/tackling%20climate%20change/intl_strategy/ipccreports/1_20100324114204_e_@@_listapplicantsuktoipcc.pdf (last accessed 31 August 2012).Google Scholar
Demeritt, D. (2001). The Construction of Global Warming and the Politics of Science. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 91, 307–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Depledge, J. (2006). The Opposite of Learning: Ossification in the Climate Change Regime. Global Environmental Politics, 6, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Depledge, J. (2007). A Special Relationship: Chairpersons and the Secretariat in the Climate Change Negotiations. Global Environmental Politics, 7, 45–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Depledge, J. (2008). Striving for No: Saudi Arabia in the Climate Change Regime. Global Environmental Politics, 8, 9–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Pryck, K. (2021). Intergovernmental Expert Consensus in the Making: The Case of the Summary for Policy Makers of the IPCC 2014 Synthesis Report. Global Environmental Politics, 21(1), 108–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Pryck, K. (2022). Governmental Approval. In De Pryck, K. & Hulme, M., eds., A Critical Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 187–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Souza, M. (2010). Climate Role Helps National Image: Memo. Postmedia News, 17 December 2010. Available at: www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Climate+role+helps+national+image+memo/3990564/story.html (last accessed 19 December 2010).Google Scholar
Dhillon, C. M. (2020). Indigenous Feminisms: Disturbing Colonialism in Environmental Science Partnerships. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, 6(4), 483–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dhillon, C. M. (2022). Indigenous-Settler Climate Change Boundary Organizations Contending with U.S. Colonialism. American Behavioral Scientist, 66(7), 937–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drieschova, A. & Bueger, C. (2022). Conceptualising International Practices. In Drieschova, A., Bueger, C., & Hopf, T., eds., Conceptualizing International Practices: Directions for the Practice Turn in International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubash, N. K., Fleurbaey, M., & Kartha, S. (2014). Political Implications of Data Presentation. Science, 345(6192), 36–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dunlap, R. E. & McCright, A. M. (2015). Challenging Climate Change: The Denial Countermovement. In Dunlap, R. E. & Brulle, R. J., eds., Climate Change and Society: Sociological Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 300–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eagleton-Pierce, M. (2013). Symbolic Power in the World Trade Organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Edenhofer, O. & Minx, J. (2014). Mapmakers and Navigators, Facts and Values. Science, 345(6192), 37–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edwards, P. N. (1999). Global Climate Science, Uncertainty and Politics: Data-Laden Models, Model-filtered Data. Science as Culture, 8(4), 437–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, P. N. (2001). Representing the Global Atmosphere: Computer Models, Data, and Knowledge about Climate Change. In Miller, C. & Edwards, P., eds., Changing the Atmosphere: Expert Knowledge and Global Environmental Governance. Cambridge: MIT Press, 219–46.Google Scholar
Edwards, P. N. (2010). A Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data, and the Politics of Global Warming. Cambridge, MA; London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Edwards, P. N. (2022). Peer Review. In De Pryck, K. & Hulme, M., eds., A Critical Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 96–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, P. N. & Lahsen, M.(1999). Climate Science and Politics in the US. http://pne.people.si.umich.edu/PDF/PMNPC/USA.pdf (last accessed 23 September 2012).Google Scholar
Edwards, P. N. & Schneider, S. H. (2001). Self-Governance and Peer Review in Science-for-Policy: The Case of the IPCC Second Assessment Report. In Miller, C. & Edwards, P. eds., Changing the Atmosphere: Expert Knowledge and Global Environmental Governance. Cambridge: MIT Press, 219–46.Google Scholar
Eilerpin, J. (2007). U.S., China Got Climate Warnings Toned Down. Washington Post 7 April 2007. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content.article/2007/04/06/AR2007040600291.html. (last accessed 16 September 2012).Google Scholar
den Elzen, M. G. J., Höhne, N., Brouns, B., Winkler, H., & Ott, H. E. (2007). Differentiation of Countries’ Future Commitments in a Post-2012 Climate Regime: An Assessment of the ‘South–North Dialogue’ Proposal. Environmental Science & Policy 10(3):185–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eni-ibukun, T. A., Davenport, D., Gutiérrez, M., & Mead, L. (2022). Summary of the 55th Session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the 12th Session of Working Group II: 14–27 February 2022. Earth Negotiations Bulletin, 12(794), 1–24.Google Scholar
Epstein, C. (2008). The Power of Words in International Relations: Birth of an Anti-Whaling Discourse. Cambridge, MA; London: MIT.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fidler, D. (2010). The Challenges of Global Health Governance. Working Paper for Council of Foreign Relations. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/health/eu_world/docs/ev_20111111_rd01_en.pdf (last accessed 30 April 2012).Google Scholar
Field, C. B. et al. (2012). Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, pp. 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, D. R & Freudenburg, W. R.. (2001). Ecological Modernization and Its Critics: Assessing the Past and Looking toward the Future. Society & Natural Resources 14:701–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fligstein, Neil & McAdam, Doug. (2011). Toward a General Theory of Strategic Action Fields. Sociological Theory 29(1):1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fogel, C. (2005). Biotic Carbon Sequestration and the Kyoto Protocol: The Construction of Global Knowledge by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. International Environmental Agreements, 5, 191–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, J. D., Vanderbilt, W., & Berrang-Ford, L. (2012). Authorship in IPCC AR5 and Its Implications for Content: Climate Change and Indigenous Populations in WGII. Climatic Change, 113(2), 201–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ford, J. D., Cameron, L., Rubis, J., Maillet, M., Nakashima, D., Willox, A. C., & Pearce, T. (2016). Including Indigenous Knowledge and Experience in IPCC Assessment Reports. Nature Climate Change, 6(4), 349–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forster, P. et al. (2007). Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. In Solomon, S. et al. (eds) Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Franz, W. E. (1997). The Development of an International Agenda for Climate Change: Connecting Science to Policy. Discussion Paper E-97-07, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, August 1997.Google Scholar
Gay-Antaki, M. (2021). Stories from the IPCC: An Essay on Climate Science in Fourteen Questions. Global Environmental Change, 71, 102384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gay-Antaki, M. & Liverman, D. (2018). Climate for Women in Climate Science: Women Scientists and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 201710271.Google Scholar
Gettelman, A. (2003). The Information Divide in the Climate Sciences. Report of a 2002 Survey, Environmental and Societal Impacts Group, National Left for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, 52 pp. Available at: www.esig.ucar.edu/infodivide (last accessed 22 September 2012).Google Scholar
Gibbs, W. W. (1995). Lost Science in the 3rd-World. Scientific American, 273, 92–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gieryn, T. F. (1983). Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists. American Sociological Review, 48, 781–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gov.uk (n.d). IPCC Call for UK Experts to Produce the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report. Available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/ipcc-call-for-uk-experts-to-produce-the-ipcc-sixth-assessment (last accessed 22 May 2023).Google Scholar
Guardian. (2010a). US Embassy Cables: US Lobbied Rajendra Pachauri to Help them Block Appointment of Iranian Scientist. The Guardian (6 December 2010). Available at: www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/168194 (last accessed 8 December 2010).Google Scholar
Guardian. (2010b). US Embassy Cables: Norway Supports US Plan to Block Election of Iranian Climate Scientist. The Guardian (6 December 2010). Available at: www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/166258 (last accessed 8 December 2010).Google Scholar
Guardian. (2010c). US Embassy Cables: Brazil Considers US Plan to Block Election of Iranian Climate Scientist. The Guardian (6 December 2010). Available at: www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/166298 (last accessed 8 December 2010).Google Scholar
Guardian. (2010d). US Embassy Cables: Saudi Arabia Fears Missed Trick on Copenhagen Climate Accord. The Guardian (3 December 2010). Available at: www.theguardian.com/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/248643Google Scholar
Guillemot, H. (2022). Climate Models. In De Pryck, K. & Hulme, M. eds., A Critical Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 126–36.Google Scholar
Gupta, J. (2013). The Climate Change Convention and Developing Countries: From Conflict to Consensus? Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Gupta, S., Tirpak, D. A., Burger, N., et al. (2007). Policies, Instruments and Co-operative Arrangements. In Metz, B., Davidson, O. R., Bosch, P. R., Dave, R., & Meyer, L. A. eds., Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK, and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gustafsson, K. (2019). Learning from the Experiences of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Balancing Science and Policy to Enable Trustworthy Knowledge. Sustainability, 11(22), 6533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guston, D. H. (1999). Stabilizing the Boundary between US Politics and Science: The Role of the Office of Technology Transfer as a Boundary Organization. Social Studies of Science, 29, 87–111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guston, D. H. (2001). Boundary Organizations in Environmental Policy and Science: An Introduction. Science Technology & Human Values, 26, 399–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutiérrez, M., Muñoz, M., & Johnson, S. S. (2007a). Tenth Session of Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: 29 January–1 February 2007. Earth Negotiations Bulletin, 12(319), 1–18.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez, M., Kulovesi, K., & Muñoz, M. (2007b). Eighth Session of Working Group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: 2–6 April 2007. Earth Negotiations Bulletin, 12 (320), 1–12.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez, M. et al. (2007c). Ninth Session of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: 30 April–4 May 2007. Earth Negotiations Bulletin, 12 (321), 1–16.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez, M., van Alstine, J., & Yamineva, M. (2011). Summary of the 34th Session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: 18–19 December 2012. Earth Negotiations Bulletin, 15 (522), 1–12.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez, M., Kosolapova, A., Luomi, M., & Mead, L. (2014). Summary of the 12th Session of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: 7–12 April 2014. Earth Negotiations Bulletin, 12(597), 1–24.Google Scholar
Haas, P. M. (1989). Do Regimes Matter – Epistemic Communities and Mediterranean Pollution Control. International Organization, 43, 377–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haas, P. M. (1990). Obtaining International Environmental Protection through Epistemic Consensus. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 19, 347–63.Google Scholar
Haas, P. M. (1992a). Epistemic Communities and International-Policy Coordination – Introduction. International Organization, 46, 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haas, P. M. (2000). International Institutions and Social Learning in the Management of Global Environmental Risks. Policy Studies Journal, 28, 558–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haas, P. M. (2004). When Does Power Listen to Truth? A Constructivist Approach to the Policy Process. Journal of European Public Policy, 11, 569–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haas, P. M. (2005). Science and International Environmental Governance. In Dauverge, P. ed., Handbook of Global Environmental Politics. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 383–401.Google Scholar
Haas, P. M. (2008). Climate Change Governance after Bali. Global Environmental Politics, 8, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haas, P. M. & McCabe, D. (2001). Amplifiers or Dampeners: International Institutions and Social Learning in the Management of Global Environmental Risks. In, volume edited by the Social Learning Group. Learning to Manage Global Environmental Risks, volume 1. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 323–48.Google Scholar
Haas, P. M. & Stevens, C. (2011). Organized Science, Usable Knowledge, and Multilateral Environmental Governance. In Lidskog, R. & Sundkvist, G. (eds) Governing the Air: The Dynamics of Science, Policy and Citizen Interaction. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press, 125–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haines, A. (2008). Climate Change and Health Strengthening the Evidence Base for Policy. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35, 411–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haines, A. et al. (2007). Energy and Health 6 – Policies for Accelerating Access to Clean Energy, Improving Health, Advancing Development, and Mitigating Climate Change. Lancet, 370, 1264–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haines, A. et al. (2009). Health and Climate Change 6 Public Health Benefits of Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse-Gas Emissions: Overview and Implications for Policy Makers. Lancet, 374, 2104–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hajer, M. A. (1995). The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hall, N. (2015). Money or Mandate?: Why International Organizations Engage with the Climate Change Regime. Global Environmental Politics, 15(2), 79–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, J. (2009). ‘Copenhagen Climate Conference: The Key Players’. Guardian, 30 November 2009. Available at: www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/30/copenhagen-key-players (last accessed 17 August 2011).Google Scholar
Hart, D. M. & Victor, D. G. (1993). Scientific Elites and the Making of US Policy for Climate-Change Research, 1957–74. Social Studies of Science, 23(4), 643–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hashimoto, S. et al. (1990). Human Settlement; The Energy, Transport, and Industrial Sectors; Human Health; Air Quality; and Changes in Ultraviolet-B Radiation. In Tegart, W. J., Sheldon, G. W., & Griffiths, D. C., eds., Climate Change: The IPCC Impacts Assessment. Australia: Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories by the Australian Government Publishing Service, 163–207.Google Scholar
Hecht, A. D. & Tirpak, D. (1995). Framework Agreement on Climate Change – A Scientific and Policy History. Climatic Change, 29, 371–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hermansen, E. A. T., Lahn, B., Sundqvist, G., & Øye, E. (2021). Post-Paris Policy Relevance: Lessons from the IPCC SR15 Process. Climatic Change, 169(1), 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilgartner, S. (2000). Science on Stage: Expert Advice as Public Drama. Stanford: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiramatsu, A., Mimura, N., & Sumi, A. (2008). A Mapping of Global Warming Research Based on IPCC AR4. Sustainability Science, 3(2), 201–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ho-Lem, C., Zerriffi, H., & Kandlikar, M. (2011). 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. Global Environmental Change, 21, 1308–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoppe, R., Wesselink, A., & Cairns, R. (2013). Lost in the Problem: The Role of Boundary Organisations in the Governance of Climate Change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 4, 283–300.Google Scholar
Houghton, J. (2002). An Overview of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Its Process of Science Assessment. Issues in Environmental Science and Technology, 17, 1–20.Google Scholar
Houghton, J. (2008). Madrid 1995: Diagnosing Climate Change. Nature, 455, 737–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Houghton, J. T., Jenkins, G. J., & Ephraums, J. J. (1990). Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment. Published for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, 1990 (1991).Google Scholar
Houghton, J. T. et al. (1996). Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change: Contribution of WG 1 to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Houghton, J. T. (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: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hughes, H. (2015). Bourdieu and the IPCC’s Symbolic Power. Global Environmental Politics, 15, 85–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, H. (2022). Governments. In De Pryck, K. & Hulme, M., eds., A Critical Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 79–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, H. (2023). Actors, Activities, and Forms of Authority in the IPCC. Review of International Studies, 1–21.Google Scholar
Hughes, H. & Paterson, R. M. (2017). Narrowing the Climate Field: The Symbolic Power of Authors in the IPCC’s Assessment of Mitigation. Review of Policy Research, 34, 744–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, H. & Vadrot, A. B. M. (2019). Weighting the World: IPBES and the Struggle over Biocultural Diversity. Global Environmental Politics, 19, 14–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, H., Vadrot, A., Allan, J. I., Bach, T., Bansard, J. S., Chasek, P., Gray, N., Langlet, A., Leiter, T., Marion Suiseeya, K. R., Martin, B., Paterson, M., Ruiz-Rodríguez, S. C., Wysocki, I. T., Tolis, V., Thew, H., Gonçalves, M. V., & Yamineva, Y. (2021). Global Environmental Agreement-Making: Upping the Methodological and Ethical Stakes of Studying Negotiations. Earth System Governance, 10, 100121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, H. & Vadrot, A. B. M. (2023). Introduction: A Broadened Understanding of Global Environmental Negotiations. In Hughes, H. & Vadrot, A. B. M., eds. (2023). Conducting Research on Global Environmental Agreement-Making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, M. S. (2003). The File: Agency, Authority, and Autography in an Islamabad Bureaucracy. Language & Communication, 23(3), 287–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, M. S. (2012). Government of Paper: The Materiality of Bureaucracy in Urban Pakistan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulme, M. (2008). Geographical Work at the Boundaries of Climate Change. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 33(1), 5–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulme, M. & Mahony, M. (2010). Climate Change: What Do We Know about the IPCC? Progress in Physical Geography, 34, 705–18.Google Scholar
IAC. (2010a) Review of IPCC processes and procedures. Report by the InterAcademy Council. IPCC-XXXII/Doc.7. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/doc07_p32_report_IAC.pdf (last accessed 03 August 2023).Google Scholar
IAC. (2010b). Responses to the IAC questionnaire. Available at: https://hro001.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/iacreviewcommentsbookmarkedannotated.pdf (last accessed 3 August 2023).Google Scholar
Ibarra, C., Jiménez, G., O’Ryan, R., Blanco, G., Cordero, L., Insunza, X., Moraga, P., Rojas, M., & Sapiains, R. (2022). Scientists and Climate Governance: A View from the South. Environmental Science & Policy, 137, 396–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, P. (2009). Pierre Bourdieu. In Edkins, J. & Vaughan-Williams, N., eds., Critical Theorists and International Relations. London: Routledge, 102–13.Google Scholar
Jaeger, J. & O’Riordan, T. (1996). The History of Climate Change Science and Politics. In Jaeger, J. & O’Riordan, T., eds., Politics of Climate Change: A European Perspective. London: Routledge, 1–31.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (2004a). The Idiom of Co-production. In Jasonoff, S., ed., States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and Social Order. International Library of Sociology. London: Routledge, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (2004b). Ordering Knowledge, Ordering Society. In Jasonoff, S. ed., States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and Social Order. International Library of Sociology. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jinnah, S. (2010). Overlap Management in the World Trade Organization: Secretariat Influence on Trade-Environment Politics. Global Environmental Politics, 10, 54–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jinnah, S. (2011a). Climate Change Bandwagoning: The Impacts of Strategic Linkages on Regime Design, Maintenance, and Death Introduction. Global Environmental Politics, 11(3), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jinnah, S. (2011b). Marketing Linkages: Secretariat Governance of the Climate-Biodiversity Interface. Global Environmental Politics, 11(3), 23–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jinnah, S. (2014). Post-treaty Politics: Secretariat Influence in Global Environmental Governance. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jöns, H. & Hoyler, M. (2013). Global Geographies of Higher Education: The Perspective of World University Rankings. Geoforum, 46, 45–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jowitt, J. (2011). The Leaked Climate Science Emails – and What They Mean. Guardian, 24 November 2011. Available at: www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/24/leaked-climate-science-emails (last accessed 5 September 2012).Google Scholar
Kandlikar, M. & Sagar, A. (1999). Climate Change Research and Analysis in India: An Integrated Assessment of a South-North Divide. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions, 9(2), 119–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karlsson, S., Srebotnjak, T., & Gonzales, P. (2007). Understanding the North-South Knowledge Divide and Its Implications for Policy: A Quantitative Analysis of the Generation of Scientific Knowledge in the Environmental Sciences. Environmental Science & Policy, 10(7–8), 668–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellogg, W. W. (1987). Mankinds Impact on Climate – the Evolution of an Awareness. Climatic Change, 10(2), 113–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keohane, R. O. & Victor, D. G. (2011). The Regime Complex for Climate Change. Perspectives on Politics, 9, 7–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ketcham, C. (2022). How Scientists from the ‘Global South’ Are Sidelined at the IPCC. The Intercept, posted 17 November 2022. https://theintercept.com/2022/11/17/climate-un-ipcc-inequality/ (last accessed 5 June 2023).Google Scholar
Klenk, N., Fiume, A., Meehan, K., & Gibbes, C. (2017). Local Knowledge in Climate Adaptation Research: Moving Knowledge Frameworks from Extraction to Co-production. WIREs Climate Change, 8, e475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kouw, M. & Petersen, A. (2018). Diplomacy in Action: Latourian Politics and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Science & Technology Studies, 31(1), 52–68. Article 1.Google Scholar
Lahn, B. (2021). Changing Climate Change: The Carbon Budget and the Modifying Work of the IPCC. Social Studies of Science, 51(1), 3–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lahn, B. (2022). Boundary Objects. In De Pryck, K. & Hulme, M., eds., A Critical Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 225–33.Google Scholar
Lahn, B. & Sundqvist, G. (2017). Science as a “Fixed Point”? Quantification and Boundary Objects in International Climate Politics. Environmental Science & Policy, 67, 8–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lahsen, M. (1998). The Detection and Attribution of Conspiracies: The Controversy over Chapter 8. In Marcus, G. E. ed., Paranoia within Reason: A Casebook on Conspiracy as Explanation. Late Editions 6, Cultural Studies for the End of the Century. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Lahsen, M. (2004). Transnational Locals: Brazilian Experiences of the Climate Regime. In Jasanoff, S. & Martello, M. L., eds., Earthly Politics: Local and Global in Environmental Governance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 159.Google Scholar
Lahsen, M. (2008). Experiences of Modernity in the Greenhouse: A Cultural Analysis of a Physicist ‘Trio’ Supporting the Backlash against Global Warming. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions, 18(1), 204–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langhelle, O. (2000). Why ecological modernisation and sustainable development should not be conflated. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 2: 303–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latulippe, N. & Klenk, N. (2020). Making Room and Moving Over: Knowledge Co-production, Indigenous Knowledge Sovereignty and the Politics of Global Environmental Change Decision-making. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. Advancing the Science of Actionable Knowledge for Sustainability, 42, 7–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larigauderie, A. & Mooney, H. A. (2010). The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Moving a Step Closer to an IPCC-Like Mechanism for Biodiversity. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2(1), 9–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawler, A. (2002). Pachauri Defeats Watson in New Chapter for Global Panel. Science, 296 (5568), 632.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leander, A. (2011). The Promises, Problems, and Potentials of a Bourdieu-Inspired Staging of International Relations. International Political Sociology, 5, 294–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leggett, J. K. (1999). The Carbon War: Dispatches from the End of the Oil Century. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
Levin, K., Cashore, B., Bernstein, S., & Auld, G. (2009). Playing It Forward: Path Dependency, Progressive Incrementalism, and the ‘Super Wicked’ Problem of Global Climate Change. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 6(50), 502002.Google Scholar
Levin, K., Cashore, B., Bernstein, S., & Auld, G. (2012). Overcoming the Tragedy of Super Wicked Problems: Constraining Our Future Selves to Ameliorate Global Climate Change. Policy Sciences, 45(2), 123–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lidskog, R. & Sundqvist, G. (2015). When Does Science Matter? International Relations Meets Science and Technology Studies. Global Environmental Politics, 15(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Litfin, K. (1994). Ozone Discourse: Science and Politics in Global Environmental Cooperation. New York; Chichester. Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Liverman, D., vonHedemann, N., Nying’uro, P., Rummukainen, M., Stendahl, K., Gay-Antaki, M., Craig, M., Aguilar, L., Bynoe, P., Call, F., Connors, S., David, L., Ferrone, A., Hayward, B., Jayawardena, S., Mai Touray, L., Parikh, J., Pathak, M., Perez, R., Pirani, A., Prakash, A., Textor, C., Tibig, L., Tignor, M., Tuğaç, Ç., Vera, C., & Wagle, R. (2022). Survey of Gender Bias in the IPCC. Nature, 602(7895), 30–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Livingston, G., Waring, B., Pacheco, L. F., Buchori, D., Jiang, Y., Gilbert, L., & Jha, S. (2016). Perspectives on the Global Disparity in Ecological Science. BioScience, 66, 147–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Livingston, J. E., Lövbrand, E., & Olsson, J. A. (2018). From Climates Multiple to Climate Singular: Maintaining Policy-Relevance in the IPCC Synthesis Report. Environmental Science & Policy, 90, 83–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Livingston, J. E. & Rummukainen, M. (2020). Taking Science by Surprise: The Knowledge Politics of the IPCC Special Report on 1.5 Degrees. Environmental Science and Policy, 112, 10–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorenzoni, I. & Harold, J. (2022). Visuals. In De Pryck, K., & Hulme, M., eds., A Critical Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 234–43.Google Scholar
Lövbrand, E. (2007). Pure Science or Policy Involvement? Ambiguous Boundary-Work for Swedish Carbon Cycle Science. Environmental Science and Policy, 10(1), 39–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lunde, L. (1991). Science or Politics in the Global Greenhouse? The Development towards Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. Lysaker: Fridtjof Nansen Institute.Google ScholarPubMed
Mach, K. J., Freeman, P. T., Mastrandrea, M. D., & Field, C. B. (2016). A Multistage Crucible of Revision and Approval Shapes IPCC Policymaker Summaries. Science Advances, 2(8), e1600421.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mahony, M. (2014). The Predictive State: Science, Territory and the Future of the Indian Climate. Social Studies of Science, 44(1), 109–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mahony, M. (2015). Climate Change and the Geographies of Objectivity: The Case of the IPCC’s Burning Embers Diagram. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 40, 153–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, J. (2007). ‘Scientists, Governments Clash over Warming Report’ Reuters (6 April 2007) at: www.reuters.com/article/2007/04/06/us-globalwarming-scientists-idUSL0649942120070406 (last accessed 29 September 2011)Google Scholar
Masood, E. (1996). Climate Report ‘Subject to Scientific Cleansing’. Nature, 381 (13 June 1996), 546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCright, A. M. & Dunlap, R. E. (2003). Defeating Kyoto: The Conservative Movement’s Impact on U.S. Climate Change Policy. Social Problems, 50(3), 348–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCright, A. M. & Dunlap, R. E. (2010). Anti-Reflexivity the American Conservative Movement’s Success in Undermining Climate Science and Policy. Theory Culture & Society, 27, 100–33.Google Scholar
McGrath, M. (2018). ‘Climate Change: COP24 Fails to Adopt Key Scientific Report’, BBC News, 8 December, at www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46496967 (last accessed 14 August 2019).Google Scholar
McIntyre, S. (2009). Climate Gatekeeping: Michaels and McKitrick 2004. Climate Audit, 17 December 2009. Available at: http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/17/climategatekeeping-2/ (last accessed 3 September 2012).Google Scholar
McLaren, C. & Carter, A. (2010). ‘UKCDS Workstream Review: Review of Funding and Outputs of UK Research on Climate Change and Development’.Google Scholar
McMichael, A. J. et al. (1996). Human Population Health. In Watson, R. et al. eds., Climate Change 1995: Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change: Scientific-Technical Analyses. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 561–85.Google Scholar
McMichael, A. J. et al. (2001). Human Health. In McCarthy, J. J., et al. eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 451–86.Google Scholar
Mead, L., Cardenes, I., Gutiérrez, M., & Woods, B. (2017). Summary of the 47th Session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: 6–10 September 2017. Earth Negotiations Bulletin, 12 (702), 1–15.Google Scholar
Meadows, D. H., Randers, J., & Meadows, D. L. (1972). The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind. New York: New American Library.Google Scholar
Miller, C. (2001a). Scientific Internationalism in American Foreign Policy: The Case of Meteorology, 1947–1958. In Miller, C. & Edwards, P. N., eds., Changing the Atmosphere: Expert Knowledge and Environmental Governance. Cambridge, MA; London: MIT, 167–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, C. (2001b). Hybrid Management: Boundary Organizations, Science Policy, and Environmental Governance in the Climate Regime. Science Technology and Human Values, 26(4), 478–500.CrossRefGoogle 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 Social Order. International Library of Sociology. London: Routledge, 46–66.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R. B., Clark, W. C., Cash, D. W., & Dickson, N. M. (eds)(2006). Global Environmental Assessments: Information and Influence. Cambridge, MA; London: MIT.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mol, A. P. J. & Spaargaren, G. (2000). Ecological Modernization Theory in Debate: A Review. Environmental Politics 9:17–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monbiot, G. (2010). ‘Climate change email scandal shames the university and requires resignations’. Guardian, 2 February 2010. Available at: www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/feb/02/climate-change-hacked-emails (last accessed 18 December 2023).Google Scholar
Moss, R. H. (2000). Ready for IPCC-2001: Innovation and Change in Plans for the IPCC Third Assessment Report – An Editorial Comment. Climatic Change, 45, 459–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neumann, I. B. (2002). Returning Practice to the Linguistic Turn: The Case of Diplomacy. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 31(3), 627–51.Google Scholar
Neumann, I. B. (2007). ‘A Speech That the Entire Ministry May Stand For’, Or: Why Diplomats Never Produce Anything New. International Political Sociology, 1, 183–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newell, P. (2000). Climate for Change: Non-State Actors and the Global Politics of the Greenhouse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NOAA. (2012). Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. Available at: www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ (last accessed 9 August 2012).Google Scholar
Nordlund, G. (2008). Futures Research and the IPCC Assessment Study on the Effects of Climate Change. Futures, 40(10), 873–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NRC. (2001). Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions. Committee on the Science of Climate Change. Washington, DC: National Research Council.Google Scholar
Okem, A. E., Sutherland, C., Roberts, D., Craig, M. H., North, M. A., Hunter, N., & Slotow, R. (2021). ‘Reuters’ Hot List of Climate Scientists Is Geographically Skewed: Why This Matters’. The Conversation. http://theconversation.com/reuters-hot-list-of-climate-scientists-is-geographically-skewed-why-this-matters-161614 (May 27, 2023).Google Scholar
Okereke, C. (2017). A Six-Component Model for Assessing Procedural Fairness in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climatic Change, 145(3), 509–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okereke, C., Bulkeley, H., & Schroeder, H. (2009). Conceptualizing Climate Governance beyond the International Regime. Global Environmental Politics, 9(1), 58–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Neill, S., Williams, H. T. P., Kurz, T., Wiersma, B., & Boykoff, M. (2015). Dominant Frames in Legacy and Social Media Coverage of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Nature Climate Change, 5(4), 380–85. Article 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Reilly, J. (2022). Uncertainty. In De Pryck, K. & Hulme, M., eds., A Critical Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 159–68.Google Scholar
Overland, I., Fossum Sagbakken, H., Isataeva, A., Kolodzinskaia, G., Simpson, N. P., Trisos, C., & Vakulchuk, R. (2022). Funding Flows for Climate Change Research on Africa: Where Do They Come from and Where Do They Go? Climate and Development, 14(8), 705–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paasi, A. (2005). Globalisation, Academic Capitalism, and the Uneven Geographies of International Journal Publishing Spaces. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 37(5), 769–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pachauri, R. (2008). ‘Some Issues Related to the Future of the IPCC’. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/scoping_meeting_ar5/future-ipcc-4-january-2008-2.pdf (last accessed 30 August 2012).Google Scholar
Pachauri, R. (2010). ‘Statement by the Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) at the Opening Session of the 16th Conference of the Parties, Cancun, Mexico, November 29, 2010’. Available at: unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_16/media/application/pdf/101129_cop16_oc_rpac.pdfGoogle Scholar
Parry, M. L. et al. (2007). Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Parson, E., Agrawala, S., Patt, A, Keohane, R., Mitchell, R., Botcheva, L., Clark, W. DeSombre, E., McCarthy, J., & Shea, E. (1997). Working Group I: The Forms of Assessment. Available at: https://rmitchel.uoregon.edu/sites/rmitchel1.uoregon.edu/files/resume/other_publications/1997-ExplainingFormsOfAssessment.pdf (last accessed 30 May 2023).Google Scholar
Pasgaard, M. & Strange, N. (2013). A Quantitative Analysis of the Causes of the Global Climate Change Research Distribution. Global Environmental Change, 23, 1684–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pasgaard, M., Dalsgaard, B., Maruyama, P. K., Sandel, B., & Strange, N. (2015). Geographical Imbalances and Divides in the Scientific Production of Climate Change Knowledge. Global Environmental Change, 35, 279–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paterson, M. (2009). Post-Hegemonic Climate Politics? British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 11, 140–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paterson, M. & Grubb, M. (1992). The International Politics of Climate Change. International Affairs, 68(2), 293–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PBL. (2010). Assessing an IPCC Assessment. An Analysis of Statements on Projected Regional Impacts in the 2007 Report. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL). The Hague/Bilthoven.Google Scholar
Pearce, D. W. et al. (1996). The Social Costs of Climate Change: Greenhouse Damage and the Benefits of Control. In Bruce, J. P., Yi, H., & Haites, E. F., eds., Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change: Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 179–224.Google Scholar
Pearce, F. (2010). Climate Wars: The Story of the Hacked Emails. Guardian Special Investigation, 9 February 2010. Available at: www.guardian.co.uk/environment/series/climate-wars-hacked-emails (last accessed 13 August 2012).Google Scholar
Pearce, W., Mahony, M., & Raman, S. (2018). Science Advice for Global Challenges: Learning from Trade-offs in the IPCC. Environmental Science & Policy, 80, 125–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, A. R. & Schuldt, J. P. (2014). Facing the Diversity Crisis in Climate Science. Nature Climate Change, 4(12), 1039–42. Article 12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, A. C. (2006). Simulating Nature: A Philosophical Study of Computer-Simulation Uncertainties and Their Role in Climate Science and Policy. The Netherlands: Het Spinhuis Publishers.Google Scholar
Pouliot, V. (2010). International Security in Practice: The Politics of Nato-Russia Diplomacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pouliot, V. (2016). International Pecking Orders: The Politics and Practice of Multilateral Diplomacy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pouliot, V. & Mérand, F. (2012). Bourdieu’s Concepts: Political Sociology in International Relations. In Adler-Nissen, R. (ed) Bourdieu in International Relations. Routledge: London and New York. 24–44.Google Scholar
Raffles, H. (2014). In Amazonia: A Natural History. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rajamani, L. (2015a). The Devilish Details: Key Legal Issues in the 2015 Climate Negotiations. The Modern Law Review, 78(5), 826–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rajamani, L. (2015b). Addressing Loss and Damage from Climate Change Impacts. Economic and Political Weekly, 50(30), 17–21.Google Scholar
Rajamani, L. (2016). Ambition and Differentiation in the 2015 Paris Agreement: Interpretive Possibilities and Underlying Politics. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 65(2), 493–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reuters. (2021). Explore the Reuters Hot List of 1,000 Top Climate Scientists. Reuters. Apri20, 2021. www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/climate-change-scientists-list/ (last accessed 2023 May 16).Google Scholar
Riles, A. (2000). The Network Inside Out. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodhe, H. (1991). Bolin Bert and His Scientific Career. Tellus Series a-Dynamic Meteorology and Oceanography 43:3–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagar, A. & Kandlikar, M. (1997). Knowledge, Rhetoric and Power – International Politics of Climate Change. Economic and Political Weekly, 31, 39–48.Google Scholar
Schenuit, F. (2023). Staging Science: Dramaturgical Politics of the IPCC’s Special Report on 1.5 °C. Environmental Science & Policy, 139, 166–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schipper, E. L. F., Ensor, J., Mukherji, A., Mirzabaev, A., Fraser, A., Harvey, B., Totin, E., Garschagen, M., Pathak, M., Antwi-Agyei, P., Tanner, T., & Shawoo, Z. (2021). Equity in Climate Scholarship: A Manifesto for Action. Climate and Development, 13(10), 853–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, S. H. (1991). Three Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Environment, 33, 25–30.Google Scholar
Schneider, S. H. (2009). Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save Earth’s Climate. Washington, DC: National Geographic.Google Scholar
Schumacher, E. F. (1974). Small Is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as If People Mattered. [S.l.]. London: Sphere Books.Google Scholar
SCOPE. (1986). The Greenhouse Effect, Climatic Change, and Ecosystems. In Bolin, B. & Doos, B. R. et al. eds., SCOPE 29. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 541.Google Scholar
Scott, L., Bucher, A., Cross, A., Kunaratnam, Y., & Tufet, M. (2021). UK-Funded Research on Climate Change and International Development: The Scope and Reach of UK ODA and Wellcome-Funded Research (2015–2020). UK Collaborative on Development Research (UKCDR). Available at: www.ukcdr.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/01880-UKCDR-Climate-Change-Report.pdf (last accessed 12 June 2023).Google Scholar
Sending, O. J. (2015). The Politics of Expertise: Competing for Authority in Global Governance. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seitz, F. (1996). A Major Deception on Global Warming. Wall Street Journal, June 12, 1996.Google Scholar
Shackley, S. (1996). Global Climate Change and Modes of International Science and Policy. In Elzinga, A. & Langstrom, C. (eds), Internationalism and Science. Taylor Graham, London, 199–222.Google Scholar
Shackley, S. (1999). Climate Change Science and Policy in the UK: An Over-Identified Scientific Problem in a Context of Political Intransigence. Available at: http://pne.people.si.umich.edu/PDF/PMNPC/uk.pdf (last accessed 23 September 2012).Google Scholar
Shackley, S. & Skodvin, T.. (1995). Ipcc Gazing and the Interpretative Social Sciences: A Comment on Sonja Boehmer- Christiansen’s: ‘Global Climate Protection Policy: The Limits of Scientific Advice’. Global Environmental Change 5:175–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shackley, S. & Wynne, B. (1995). Global Climate Change: The Mutual Construction of an Emergent Science-Policy Domain. Science and Public Policy, 22, 218–30.Google Scholar
Shackley, S. & Wynne, B. (1996). Representing Uncertainty in Global Climate Change Science and Policy: Boundary-Ordering Devices and Authority. Science Technology and Human Values, 21, 275–302.CrossRefGoogle 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? Climatic Change, 38(2), 159–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, A. (2000). Imbued Meaning: Science-Policy Interactions in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Honours, BA: The University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Shaw, A. (2005). Policy Relevant Scientific Information: The Co-production of Objectivity and Relevance in the IPCC. Breslauer Symposium, University of California International and Area Studies, UC Berkeley.Google Scholar
Sheirmeier, Q. (2010). IPCC Signs Up for Reform: Panel Agrees New Guidelines and Management Restructure with Pachauri Still at the Helm. Nature, 467, 891–92.Google Scholar
Siebenhüner, B. (2002). How Do Scientific Assessments Learn? Part 1. Conceptual Framework and Case Study of the IPCC. Environmental Science & Policy, 5(5), 411–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siebenhüner, B. (2003). The Changing Role of Nation States in International Environmental Assessments: The Case of the IPCC. Global Environmental Change – Human and Policy Dimensions, 13, 113–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skodvin, T. (2000a). 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. Advances in Global Change Research. Dordrecht; London: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skodvin, T. (2000b). Revised Rules of Procedures for the IPCC Process. Climatic Change, 46, 409–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SMIC. (1971). Inadvertent Climate Modification: Report of the Study of Man’s Impact on Climate (Smic). Cambridge, MA; London: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Smith, J. B. et al. (2001). Vulnerability to Climate Change and Reasons for Concern: A Synthesis Climate Change 2001 – Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of the Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. McCarthy, J. J., Canziani, O. F., Leary, N. A., Dokken, D. J. & White, K. S. eds., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 913–67.Google Scholar
Solomon, S. (2007). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis: Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sorenson, R. P. (2011). Eunice Foote’s Pioneering Research on CO2 and Climate Warming. Search and Discovery Search and Discovery, #70092.Google Scholar
Standring, A. (2022). Participant Diversity. In De Pryck, K. & Hulme, M. eds., A Critical Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Standring, A. & Lidskog, R. (2021). (How) Does Diversity Still Matter for the IPCC? Instrumental, Substantive and Co-Productive Logics of Diversity in Global Environmental Assessments. Climate, 9(6), 1–15. Article 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stavins, R. (2010). Will We Know Success When We See It? National Journal, 6 December 2010. Available at: http://climate.nationaljournal.com/2010/12/will-we-know-success-when-we-s.php (last accessed 13 August 2012).Google Scholar
Stavins, R. (2014). Is the Government Approval Process Broken? Blog Post at An Economic View of the Environment: A Blog by Robert Stavins, posted April 25 2014. Available at: www.robertstavinsblog.org/2014/04/25/is-the-ipcc-%20government-approval-process-broken-2/ (last accessed 25 September 2019)Google Scholar
Stuvøy, K. (2010). Human Security Research Practices: Conceptualizing Security for Women’s Crisis Centres in Russia. Security Dialogue, 41, 279–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sundqvist, G., Bohlin, I., Hermansen, E. A., & Yearley, S. (2015). Formalization and Separation: A Systematic Basis for Interpreting Approaches to Summarizing Science for Climate Policy. Social Studies of Science, 45, 416–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tandon, A. (2021). Analysis: The Lack of Diversity in Climate-Science Research. Carbon Brief, posted 5 October 2021. Available at: www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-the-lack-of-diversity-in-climate-science-research/ (last accessed 5 June 2023).Google Scholar
over Three Decades. Carbon Brief, posted 15 March 2023. Available at: www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-the-diversity-of-ipcc-authors-has-changed-over-three-decades/ (last accessed 21 May 2023).Google Scholar
Templeton, J., Davenport, D., Guitiérrez, M., & Hansen, G. (2022). Summary of the 56th Session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the 14th Session of Working Group III: 21 March–4 April 2022. Earth Negotiations Bulletin, 12 (795), 1–32.Google Scholar
Tessnow-von Wysocki, I. & Vadrot, A. B. M. (2020). The Voice of Science on Marine Biodiversity Negotiations: A Systematic Literature Review. Frontiers in Marine Science, 7, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tschakert, P. (2015). 1.5°C or 2°C: A Conduit’s View from the Science-Policy Interface at COP20 in Lima, Peru. Climate Change Responses, 2(1), 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UNFCCC. (1992). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Geneva: United Nations, United Nations Office at Geneva.Google Scholar
UNFCCC. (1997). Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Geneva: United Nations, United Nations Office at Geneva.Google Scholar
UNFCCC. (2015). Paris Agreement. FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1. United Nations, United Nations Office at Geneva, Geneva.Google Scholar
UNGA RES 45/53. (1988). Protection of Global Climate for Present and Future Generations of Mankind.Google Scholar
UNGA RES 45/212. (1990). Protection of Global Climate for Present and Future Generations of Mankind.Google Scholar
van der Sluijs, J., van Eijndhoven, J., Shackley, S., & Wynne, B. (1998). Anchoring Devices in Science for Policy: The Case of Consensus around Climate Sensitivity. Social Studies of Science, 28(2), 291–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vecchione Gonçalves, M. with Hughes, H. (2023). Stakes: Conducting Relational Research with Indigenous Peoples. In Hughes, H. & Vadrot, A. B. M., eds., Conducting Research on Global Environmental Agreement-Making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 74–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vergano, D. & O’Driscoll, P. (2007). ‘Scientists, Governments Clash Over Climate Report’. USA Today, 4 August 2007. Available at: www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2007-04-06-global-warming-report_N.htm# (last accessed 14 August 2011).Google Scholar
Victor, D. G., Gerlagh, R., & Baiocchi, G. (2014). Getting Serious about Categorizing Countries. Science, 345(6192), 34–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wacquant, L. (1989). Towards a Reflexive Sociology: A Workshop with Pierre Bourdieu. Sociological Theory, 7(1), 26–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wacquant, L. (1998). Pierre Bourdieu. In Stones, R., ed., Key Sociological Thinkers. London: Macmillan Press, 25–229.Google Scholar
Wacquant, L. (2002). The Sociological Life of Pierre Bourdieu. International Sociology, 17, 549–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Z., Altenburger, R., Backhaus, T., Covaci, A., Diamond, M. L., Grimalt, J. O., Lohmann, R., Schäffer, A., Scheringer, M., Selin, H., Soehl, A., & Suzuki, N. (2021). We need a global science-policy body on chemicals and waste. Science, 371(6531), 774–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weart, S. R. (2008). The Discovery of Global Warming. Revised and expanded edition. Cambridge, Massachusetts; London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, M. C. (2007). Culture and Security: Symbolic Power and the Politics of International Security. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WMO. (1979). Declaration of the World Climate Conference. In Proceedings of the World Climate Conference – A Conference of Experts in Climate and Mankind, 12–23 February 1979, WMO Publication no. 537, Geneva: World Meteorological OrganizationGoogle Scholar
WMO. (1986). Report Of The International Conference On The Assessment Of The Role Of Carbon Dioxide And Of Other Greenhouse Gases In Climate Variations And Associated Impacts. Villach, Austria, 1985, WMO/UNEP/ICSU.Google Scholar
World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yamin, F. & Depledge, J. (2004). The International Climate Change Regime: A Guide to Rules, Institutions and Procedures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamineva, Y. (2010). The Assessment Process of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Submitted as PhD thesis. Newnham College, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Yamineva, Y. (2017). Lessons from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on inclusiveness across geographies and stakeholders. Environmental Science & Policy, 77(Supplement C), 244–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yearley, S. (2009). Sociology and Climate Change after Kyoto What Roles for Social Science in Understanding Climate Change? Current Sociology, 57(3), 389–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zillman, J. W. (2007). Some Observations on the IPCC Assessment Process 1988–2007. Energy and Environment, 18, 869–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zillman, J. W. (2008). Australian Participation in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Energy & Environment, 19, 21–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zommers, Z., Marbaix, P., Fischlin, A., Ibrahim, Z. Z., Grant, S., Magnan, A. K., Pörtner, H.-O., Howden, M., Calvin, K., Warner, K., Thiery, W., Sebesvari, Z., Davin, E. L., Evans, J. P., Rosenzweig, C., O’Neill, B. C., Patwardhan, A., Warren, R., van Aalst, M. K., & Hulbert, M. (2020). Burning Embers: Towards More Transparent and Robust Climate-Change Risk Assessments. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 1(10), 516–29. Article 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
You have
Access
Open access