Adler, C. E. and Hirsch Hadorn, G. (2014). The IPCC and treatment of uncertainties: topics and sources of dissensus. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 5(5): 663–676.Google Scholar

Afsen, K. H. and Skodvin, T. (1998). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Scientific Consensus: How Scientists Come to Say What They Say about Climate Change. CICERO Policy Note 1998:3, University of Oslo, ISSN: 0804-4511.Google Scholar

Agarwal, A., Kalpana, S. and Ravi, C. (1982). State of India’s Environment: A Citizen’s Report. New Delhi: Centre for Science and Environment.Google Scholar

Agarwal, A. and Narain, S. (1991). Global Warming in an Unequal World. New Delhi: Centre for Science and the Environment.Google Scholar

Agrawala, S. (1998a). Context and early origins of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climatic Change, 39(4): 605–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Agrawala, S. (1998b). Structural and process history of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climatic Change, 39(4): 621–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Agrawala, S., Broad, K. and Guston, D. H. (2001). Integrating climate forecasts and societal decision making: challenges to an emergent boundary organization. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 26( 4): 454–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ahmed, S. (2012). On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life. Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar

Alcamo, J., Bouwman, A., Edmonds, J., et al. (1995). An evaluation of the IPCC IS92 emission scenarios. In: Houghton, J. T., et al. (eds.), Climate Change 1994: Reports of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, forming part of the IPCC Special Report to the first session of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Allan, J., Gutiérrez, M. and Bhandari, R. (2016). Summary of the 44th Session of the IPCC: 17–20 October 2016, Earth Negotiations Bulletin, 12 (677). International Institute for Sustainable Development – Reporting Services.Google Scholar

Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. New York: Verso Books.Google Scholar

Anderson, K. (2015). Duality in climate science. Nature Geoscience, 8: 898–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anderson, K. and Jewell, J. (2019). Debating the bedrock of climate-change mitigation scenarios. Nature, 57: 348–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anderson, K. and Peters, G. (2016). The trouble with negative emissions. Science, 354: 182–183.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Anon, . (2011). Evolving the IPCC. Nature Climate Change, 1(8): 227.Google Scholar

Anon, . (2018). Editorial: Science benefits from diversity. Nature, 558: 5.Google Scholar

Anon, . (2021). Food science faces its ‘IPCC’ moment. Nature, 595: 332.Google Scholar

Asayama, S. (2021). Threshold, budget and deadline: beyond the discourse of climate scarcity and control. Climatic Change, 167(3): 33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Asayama, S., Bellamy, R., Geden, O., Pearce, W. and Hulme, M. (2019). Why setting a climate deadline is dangerous. Nature Climate Change, 9(8): 570–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Asayama, S. and Ishii, A. (2014). Reconstruction of the boundary between climate science and politics: the IPCC in the Japanese mass media, 1988–2007. Public Understanding of Science, 23(2): 189–203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Asdal, K. (2008). Enacting things through numbers: taking nature into account/ing. Geoforum, 39(1): 123–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Augé, M. (1995). Non-Places: Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity. New York: Verso.Google Scholar

Aven, T. (2020). Climate change risk – What is it and how should it be expressed? Journal of Risk Research, 23(11): 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aven, T. and Renn, O. (2015). An evaluation of the treatment of risk and uncertainties in the IPCC reports on climate change. Risk Analysis, 35(4): 701–712.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ayers, J. M. and Huq, S. (2009). The value of linking mitigation and adaptation: a case study of Bangladesh. Environmental Management, 43(5): 753–764.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Aykut, S. C., Morena, E. and Foyer, J. (2021). ‘Incantatory’ governance: global climate politics’ performative turn and its wider significance for global politics. International Politics, 58: 519–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bacevic, J. (2022). Epistemic injustice and epistemic positioning: towards an intersectional political economy. Current Sociology. http://doi.org/10.1177/00113921211057609CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bäckstrand, K. (2015). Civic society. In: Pattberg, P. and Zelli, F. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Global Environmental Governance and Politics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar

Baker, M. (2015). Over half of psychology studies fail reproducibility test. Nature, 27 August. http://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2015.18248CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barkemeyer, R., Dessai, S., Monge-Sanz, B., Renzi, B. G., and Napolitano, G. (2016). Linguistic analysis of IPCC summaries for policymakers and associated coverage. Nature Climate Change, 6(3): 311–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barry, J. (2021). Green republicanism and a ‘Just Transition’ from the tyranny of economic growth. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 24(5): 725–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barry, A., Born, G. and Weszkalnys, G. (2008). Logics of interdisciplinarity. Economy and Society, 37(1): 20–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bazeley, P. (2003). Defining ‘early career’ in research. Higher Education, 45: 257–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beatty, J. and Moore, A. (2010). Should we aim for consensus? Episteme, A Journal of Social Epistemology, 7(3): 198–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beck, S. (2011a). Moving beyond the linear model of expertise? IPCC and the test of adaptation. Regional Environmental Change, (11): 297–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beck, S. (2011b). Between tribalism and trust: the IPCC under the ‘public microscope’. Nature and Culture, 7(2): 151–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beck, S. (2012). The challenges of building cosmopolitan climate expertise: the case of Germany. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 3(1): 1–17.Google Scholar

Beck, S. and Forsyth, T. J. (2015). Co-production and democratizing global environmental expertise: The IPCC and adaptation to climate change. In: Hilgartner, S., Miller, C. A. and Hagendijk, R. (eds.), Science and Democracy: Making Knowledge and Making Power in the Biosciences and Beyond. New York: Routledge. pp. 113–132.Google Scholar

Beck, S. and Mahony, M. (2018a). The IPCC and the new map of science and politics. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 9(6): e547.Google Scholar

Beck, S. and Mahony, M. (2018b). The politics of anticipation: the IPCC and the negative emission technologies experience. Global Sustainability, 1: e8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beck, S. and Oomen, J. (2021). Imagining the corridor of climate mitigation – What is at stake in IPCC’s politics of anticipation? Environmental Science & Policy, 123: 169–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beck, S., Borie, M., Chilvers, J., et al. (2014). Towards a reflexive turn in the governance of global environmental expertise. The cases of the IPCC and the IPBES. GAIA, 23(2): 80–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beck, S., Jasanoff, S., Stirling, A. and Polzin, C. (2021). The governance of sociotechnical transformations to sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 49: 143–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beck, U., Giddens, A. and Lash, S. (1994). Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Begum, R. A., Lempert, R., Ali, E., et al. (2022). Point of departure and key concepts. In: Pörtner, H. O. et al. (eds.), Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–102.Google Scholar

Bell, M. L., Davis, D. L. and Fletcher, T. (2004). A retrospective assessment of mortality from the London smog episode of 1952: the role of influenza and pollution. Environmental Health Perspectives, 112(1): 6–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Berkes, F. (2018). Sacred Ecology. 4th ed. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar

Bernstein, S. (2001). The Compromise of Liberal Environmentalism. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biermann, F. (2001). Big science, small impacts–in the South? The influence of global environmental assessments on expert communities in India. Global Environmental Change, 11(4): 297–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biermann, F. (2011). New actors and mechanisms of global governance. In: Dryzek, J. S., Norgaard, R. B. and Schlosberg, D. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 685–695.Google Scholar

Biermann, F. (2020). World environment organization. In: Morin, J. F. and Orsini, A. (eds.), Essential Concepts of Global Environmental Governance. Abingdon: Routledge. pp. 291–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bjurström, A. and Polk, M. (2011). Physical and economic bias in climate change research: a scientometric study of IPCC Third Assessment Report. Climatic Change, 108(1): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bodansky, D. (2001). The history of the global climate change regime. In: Luterbacher, U. and Sprinz, D. F. (eds.), International Relations and Global Climate Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. pp. 23–40.Google Scholar

Boehmer-Christiansen, S. (1994a). Global climate protection policy: the limits of scientific advice. Part 1. Global Environmental Change, 4: 140–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boehmer-Christiansen, S. (1994b). Global climate protection policy: the limits of scientific advice. Part 2. Global Environmental Change, 4: 185–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boehmer-Christiansen, S. (1995). Britain and the International Panel on Climate Change: the impact of scientific advice on global warming, Parts 1 and 2. Environmental Politics, 4(1): 1–18 and (2):175–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boehmer-Christiansen, S. (1996). Political pressure in the formation of scientific consensus. Energy and Environment, 7: 365–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boehmer-Christiansen, S. and Kellow, A. (2002). International Environmental Policy. Interests and the Failure of the Kyoto Process. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bolin, B. (1991). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In: Jäger, J. and Ferguson, H. L. (eds.), Climate Change: Science, Impacts, and Policy, Proceedings of the Second World Climate Conference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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

Bony, S., Stevens, B., Held, I. H., et al. (2013). Carbon dioxide and climate: perspectives on a scientific assessment. In: Asrar, G. and Hurrell, J. (eds.), Climate Science for Serving Society. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. pp. 391–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Borie, M., Gustrafsson, K. M., Obermeister, N., Turnhour, E. and Bridgewater, P. (2020). Institutionalising reflexivity? Transformative learning and the Intergovernmental science-policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Environmental Science & Policy, 110: 71–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Borie, M., Mahony, M., Obermeister, N. and Hulme, M. (2021). Knowing like a global expert organization: comparative insights from the IPCC and IPBES. Global Environmental Change, 68: 102261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bounegru, L., De Pryck, K., Venturini, T. and Mauri, M. (2020). ‘We only have 12 years’: YouTube and the IPCC Report on Global Warming of 1.5oC. First Monday, 25(2). Available at: https://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/10112 (Accessed: 2 July 2020).Google Scholar

Boykoff, M. and Pearman, O. (2019). Now or never: how media coverage of the IPCC Special Report on 1.5°C shaped climate-action deadlines. One Earth, 1(3): 285–288.Google Scholar

Boykoff, M. T. and Yulsman, T. (2013). Political economy, media, and climate change: sinews of modern life. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 4(5): 359–371.Google Scholar

Broome, J. (2020). Philosophy in the IPCC. In: Brister, E. and Frodeman, R. (eds.), Philosophy for the Real World. London: Routledge. pp. 95–110.Google Scholar

Brown, H. and Green, M. (2017). Demonstrating development: meetings as management in Kenya’s health sector. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 23(S1): 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brown, H., Reed, A. and Yarrow, T. (2017). Introduction: towards an ethnography of meeting. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 23(S1): 10–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brown, M. B. (2009). Science in Democracy: Expertise, Institutions and Representation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bruce, J. P., Lee, H. and Haites, E. F. (eds.) (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

Bruine de Bruin, W., Rabinovich, L., Weber, K., Babboni, M., Dean, M. and Ignon, L. (2021). Public understanding of climate change terminology. Climatic Change, 167(3–4): 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brysse, K., Oreskes, N., O’Reilly, J. and Oppenheimer, M. (2013). Climate change prediction: erring on the side of least drama? Global Environmental Change, 23(1): 327–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Callaghan, M., Schleussner, C.-F., Nath, S., et al. (2021). Machine-learning-based evidence and attribution mapping of 100,000 climate impact studies. Nature Climate Change, 11: 966–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Campbell, L. M., Corson, C., Gray, N. J., MacDonald, K. I. and Brosius, J. P. (2014). Studying global environmental meetings to understand global environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics, 14(3): 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carey, M., James, L. C. and Fuller, H. A. (2014). A new social contract for the IPCC. Nature Climate Change, 4: 1038–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carraro, C., Edenhofer, O., Flachsland, C., Kolstad, C., Stavins, R. and Stowe, R. (2015). The IPCC at a crossroads: opportunities for reform. Science, 350 (6256): 34–35.Google Scholar

Carton, W., Asiyanbi, A., Beck, S., Buck, H. and Lund, J. (2020). Negative emissions and the long history of carbon removal. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change. 11(6): e671.Google Scholar

Casado, M., Gremion, G., Rosenbaum, P., et al. (2019). The benefits to climate science of including early career scientists as reviewers. Geoscience Communication, 3: 89–97.Google Scholar

Caseldine, C. J., Turney, C., and Long, A. J. (2010). IPCC and palaeoclimate: an evolving story? Journal of Quaternary Science, 25(1): 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cash, D., Clark, W., Alcock, F., Dickson, N., Eckley, M. and Jäger, J. (2002). Salience, Credibility, Legitimacy and Boundaries: Linking Research, Assessment and Decision Making. WP RWP02–046, Faculty Research Working Papers Series, John F Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Castells, M. (2018). Rupture: The Crisis of Liberal Democracy. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Castree, N., Bellamy, R. and Osaka, S. (2021). The future of global environmental assessments: making a case for fundamental change. The Anthropocene Review, 8(1): 56–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chan, G., Carraro, C., Edenhofer, O., Kolstad, C. and Stavins, R. (2016). Reforming the IPCC’s Assessment of Climate Change Economics. Climate Change Economics, 7(1): 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chen, D., Rojas, M., Samset, B. H., et al. (2021). Framing, context, and methods. In: Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., et al. (eds.), Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Chubin, D. E. and Hackett, E. J. (1990). Peerless Science: Peer Review and U.S. Science Policy. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar

Clarke, L., Jiang, K., Akimoto, M., et al. (2014). Assessing transformation pathways. In: Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madrugada, R., Sokona, Y., et al. (eds.), Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 413–510.Google Scholar

Clark, W. C., Mitchell, R. B. and Cash, D. W. (2006). Evaluating the influence of global environmental assessments. In: Mitchell, R. B., Clark, W. C., Cash, W. and Dickson, N. (eds.), Global Environmental Assessments: Information and Influence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. pp. 1–28.Google Scholar

Cointe, B., Cassen, C. and Nadaï, A. (2019). Organising policy-relevant knowledge for climate action: Integrated Assessment Modelling, the IPCC, and the emergence of a collective expertise on socioeconomic emission scenarios. Science and Technology Studies, 32(4): 36–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cointe, B., Ravon, P.-A. and Guérin, E. (2011). 2°C: The History of a Policy-Science Nexus. 19/11. Paris: IDDRI.Google Scholar

Compagnon, D. and Bernstein, S. (2017). Nondemarcated spaces of knowledge-informed policy making. Review of Policy Research, 34(6): 812–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Corbera, E., Calvet-Mir, L., Hughes, H. and Paterson, M. (2016). Patterns of authorship in the IPCC Working Group III report. Nature Climate Change, 6: 94–99.Google Scholar

Corner, A. and Groves, C. (2014). Breaking the climate change communication deadlock. Nature Climate Change, 4(9): 743–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Craggs, R. and Mahony, M. (2014). The geographies of the conference: knowledge, performance and protest. Geography Compass, 8(6): 414–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cresswell, T. (2004). Place: A Short Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Curry, J. A. and Webster, P. J. (2013). Climate change: no consensus on consensus. CAB Reviews, 8(001): 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dahan-Dalmedico, A. (2008). Climate expertise: between scientific credibility and geopolitical imperatives. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 33(1): 71–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dahan-Dalmedico, A. (2010). Putting the Earth System in a numerical box? The evolution from climate modeling toward climate change. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 41(3): 282–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dahl, T. and Fløttum, K. (2017). Verbal-visual harmony or dissonance? A news values analysis of multimodal news texts on climate change. Discourse, Context & Media, 20: 124–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dairon, E. and Badache, F. (2021). Understanding international organizations’ headquarters as ecosystems: the case of Geneva. Global Policy, 12(Sup.7): 24–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dauvergne, P. (2021). Global governance and the Anthropocene: explaining the escalating global crisis. In: Weiss, T. G. and Wilkinson, R. (eds.), Global Governance Futures. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

David-Chavez, D. M. and Gavin, M. C. (2018). A global assessment of Indigenous community engagement in climate research. Environmental Research Letters, 13(123005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

De Pryck, K. (2018). Expertise under Controversy: The Case of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). PhD Dissertation, Institut d’études politiques de Paris and Université de Genève.Google Scholar

De Pryck, K. (2021a). 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): 108–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

De Pryck, K. (2021b). Controversial practices: tracing the proceduralization of the IPCC in time and space. Global Policy, 12(Sup.7): 80–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

De Pryck, K. and Wanneau, K. (2017). (Anti)-boundary work in global environmental change research and assessment. Environmental Science & Policy, 77: 203–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Death, C. (2011). Summit theatre: exemplary governmentality and environmental diplomacy in Johannesburg and Copenhagen. Environmental Politics, 20(1): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Delvenne, P. and Parotte, C. (2019). Breaking the myth of neutrality: technology assessment has politics, technology assessment as politics. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 139: 64–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Demeritt, D. (2001). The construction of global warming and the politics of science. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 91(2): 307–337.Google Scholar

Demeritt, D. and Rothman, D. (1999). Figuring the costs of climate change: an assessment and critique. Environment and Planning A, 31(3): 389–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Devès, M. H., Lang, M., Bourrelier, P.-H. and Valérian, F. (2017). Why the IPCC should evolve in response to the UNFCCC bottom-up strategy adopted in Paris? An opinion from the French Association for Disaster Risk Reduction. Environmental Science & Policy, 78(Supplement C): 142–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Díaz, S., Settele, J., Brondizio, E. S., et al. (2019). Pervasive human-driven decline of life on earth points to the need for transformative change. Science, 366: 1327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Díaz-Reviriego, I., Turnhout, E. and Beck, S. (2019). Participation and inclusiveness in the Intergovernmental Science–Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Nature Sustainability, 2: 457–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Doyle, J. (2011). Mediating Climate Change. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar

Draper, D. (1995). Assessment and propagation of model uncertainty. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B: Statistical Methodology, 57: 45–97.Google Scholar

Duarte, T. (2019). O painel brasileiro de mudanças climáticas na interface entre ciência e políticas públicas: identidades, geopolítica e concepções epistemológicas. Sociologias, 21 : 76–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dudman, K. and de Wit, S. (2021). An IPCC that listens: introducing reciprocity to climate change communication. Climatic Change, 168(1–2): 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dunlap, R. E. and McCright, A. M. (2011). Organized climate change denial. In: Dryzek, J. S., Norgaard, R. B. and Schlosberg, D. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 144–160.Google Scholar

Dupuy, J. P. (2012). The precautionary principle and enlightened doomsaying. Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale, (4): 577–592.Google Scholar

Dryzek, J. S. (2012). Foundations and Frontiers of Deliberative Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

ECOSOC and Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (2007). Report of the Secretariat on Indigenous Traditional Knowledge. Available at: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20845205 (Accessed: 12 February 2022).Google Scholar

ECOSOC and Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (2013a). Study on How the Knowledge, History and Contemporary Social Circumstances of Indigenous Peoples are Embedded in the Curricula of Education Systems. Available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/746773?ln=en (Accessed: 12 February 2022).Google Scholar

ECOSOC and Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (2013b). Study on Resilience, Traditional Knowledge and Capacity-Building for Pastoralist Communities in Africa. http://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199560103.003.0007CrossRefGoogle Scholar

ECOSOC and Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (2014). Study to Examine Challenges in the African Region to Protecting Traditional Knowledge, Genetic Resources and Folklore. http://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199560103.003.0007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

ECOSOC and Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (2015). Study on the Treatment of Traditional Knowledge in the Framework of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Post-2015 Development Agenda. UN Digital Library. Available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/788550?ln=en (Accessed: 12 February 2022).Google Scholar

Edenhofer, O. (2011). Different views ensure IPCC balance. Nature Climate Change, 1: 229–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Edenhofer, O. and Kowarsch, M. (2015). Cartography of pathways: a new model for environmental policy assessments. Environmental Science & Policy, 51: 56–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Edwards, P. N. (1999). Global climate science, uncertainty and politics: data-laden models, models-filtered data. Science as Culture, 8(4): 437–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Edwards, P. N. (2010). A Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data and the Politics of Global Warming. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Edwards, P. N. and Schneider, S. H. (1997). IPCC 1995 Report: Broad consensus or ‘scientific cleansing’? Ecofables/Ecoscience, 1: 3–9.Google Scholar

Edwards, P. N. and Schneider, S. H. (2001). Self-governance and peer review in science-for-policy: The case of the IPCC Second Assessment Report. In: Miller, C. A. and Edwards, P. N. (eds.), Changing the Atmosphere: Expert Knowledge and Environmental Governance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. pp. 219–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ekwurzel, B., Frumhoff, P. C. and McCarthy, J. J. (2011). Climate uncertainties and their discontents: increasing the impact of assessments on public understanding of climate risks and choices. Climatic Change, 108(4): 791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

El-Hinnawi, E. (2011). The intergovernmental panel on climate change and developing countries. The Environmentalist, 31(3): 197–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Elzinga, A. (1996). Shaping worldwide consensus: the orchestration of global change research. In: Elzinga, A. and Landström, C. (eds.), Internationalism and Science. London: Taylor Graham. pp. 223–255.Google Scholar

ENB [Earth Negotiations Bulletin] (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. IISD, 12(781): 1–27.Google Scholar

ERC [European Research Council] (2021). Starting Grant. Available at: https://erc.europa.eu/funding/starting-grants (Accessed: 16 December 2021).Google Scholar

ETC Group (2017). Re: Conflicts of Interest of Authors on the IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5°C Above Pre-industrial Levels. Available at: www.etcgroup.org/files/files/ipcc_conflict_of_interest_release_051217.pdf (Accessed: 25 January 2022).Google Scholar

European Union (2021). 2050 Long-Term Strategy. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/climate-strategies-targets/2050-long-term-strategy_en (Accessed: 12 February 2022).Google Scholar

Ezrahi, Y. (1990). The Descent of Icarus: Science and the Transformation of Contemporary Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Ezrahi, Y. (2012). Imagined Democracies: Necessary Political Fictions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Fankhauser, S. and Tol, R. S. J. (1998). The value of human life in global warming impacts – a comment. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 3: 87–88.Google Scholar

Farrell, A., VanDeveer, S. D. and Jäger, J. (2001). Environmental assessments: four under-appreciated elements of design. Global Environmental Change, (11): 311–333.Google Scholar

Fearnside, P. M. (1998). The value of human life in global warming impacts. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 3: 83–85.Google Scholar

Feder, T. (1996). Attacks on IPCC report heat controversy over global warming. Physics Today, 49(8): 55–57.Google Scholar

Field, C. B. and Barros, V. R. (2015). Added value from IPCC approval sessions. Science, 350(6256): 36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Fink, L. (2020). A Fundamental Reshaping of Finance. Black Rock. Available at: www.blackrock.com/corporate/investor-relations/2020-larry-fink-ceo-letter (Accessed: 12 February 2022).Google Scholar

Fiol, C. M. and Lyles, M. A. (1985). Organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 10: 803–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fischer, F. (2019). Knowledge politics and post-truth in climate denial: on the social construction of alternative facts. Critical Policy Studies, 13(2): 133–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fløttum, K., Gasper, D. and St. Clair, A. L. (2016). Synthesizing a policy-relevant perspective from the three IPCC ‘worlds’ – a comparison of topics and frames in the SPMs of the Fifth Assessment Report. Global Environmental Change, 38: 118–129.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: Politics, Law and Economics, 5(2): 191–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ford, J. D., Cameron, L., Rubis, J., et al. (2016). Including indigenous knowledge and experience in IPCC assessment reports. Nature Climate Change, 6: 349–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ford, J. D., Vanderbilt, W. and Berrang-Ford, L. (2012). Authorship in IPCC AR5 and its implications for content: climate change and Indigenous populations in WGII. Climatic Change, 113: 201–213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Forest Peoples Programme et al. (2020). Local Biodiversity Outlooks 2: The contributions of indigenous peoples and local communities to the implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and to renewing nature and cultures. A compliment to the fifth edition of the Global Biodiv. Moreton-in-Marsh, UK: Forest Peoples Programme. Available at: www.localbiodiversityoutlooks.net (Accessed: 12 February 2022).Google Scholar

Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In: Burchell, G., Gordon, C. and Miller, P. (eds.), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Franz, W. E. (1998). Science, skeptics and non-state actors in the greenhouse. ENRP Discussion Paper E-98-18. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Available at: www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/files/publication/Science%20Skeptics%20and%20Non-State%20Actors%20in%20the%20Greenhouse%20-%20E-98-18.pdf (Accessed: 19 January 2022).Google Scholar

Freedman, A. (2019). Climate scientists refute 12-year deadline to curb global warming. Axios. Available at: www.axios.com/climate-change-scientists-comment-ocasio-cortez-12-year-deadline-c4ba1f99-bc76-42ac-8b93-e4eaa926938d.html (Accessed: 15 March 2019).Google Scholar

Fry, I. (2002). Twists and turns in the jungle: exploring the evolution of land use, land–use change and forestry decisions within the Kyoto Protocol. Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, 11(2): 159–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fuglesteved, J., Guivarch, C., Jones, C., et al. (2021). The SSP scenarios as used in Working Group I. Cross-Chapter Box 1.4. In: Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., et al. (eds.), Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Fuller, S. (2002). Social Epistemology. 2nd ed. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Funtowicz, S. O. and Ravetz, J. R. (1990). Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy. Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Funtowicz, S. O. and Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25(7): 739–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Futhazar, G. (2016). From Climate to Biodiversity – Procedural transcriptions and innovations within IPBES in the light of IPCC practices. In: Hrabanski, M. and Pesche, D. (eds.), The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Meeting the Challenge of Biodiversity Conservation and Governance. London: Routledge. pp. 102–118.Google Scholar

Garard, J. and Kowarsch, M. (2017). If at first you don’t succeed: evaluating stakeholder engagement in global environmental assessments. Environmental Science & Policy, 77: 235–243.Google Scholar

Garb, Y., Pulver, S. and VanDeveer, S. D. (2008). Scenarios in society, society in scenarios: toward a social scientific analysis of storyline-driven environmental modelling. Environmental Research Letters, 3(4): 045015.Google Scholar

Garnett, S. T., Burgess, N. D. and Fa, J. E., et al. (2018). A spatial overview of the global importance of Indigenous lands for conservation. Nature Sustainability, 1(7): 369–374.Google Scholar

Gates, W., Boyle, J. S., Covey, C., et al. (1999). An overview of the results of the Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project (AMIP 1). Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 80(1): 29–56.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gaulkin, T. (2021). Why the bad news in IPCC reports is good news for visual learners. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Available at: https://thebulletin.org/2021/08/why-the-bad-news-in-the-ipcc-report-is-good-news-for-visual-learners/ (Accessed: 20 August 2021).Google Scholar

Gay-Antaki, M. (2021). Stories from the IPCC: an essay on climate science in fourteen questions. Global Environmental Change, 71: 102384.Google Scholar

Gay-Antaki, M. and 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 of the United States of America, 115(9): 2060–2065.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Geden, O. (2015). Policy: climate advisers must maintain integrity. Nature, 521(7550): 27–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ghaleigh, N. S. (2016). Science and climate change law – The role of the IPCC in international decision-making. In: Gray, K. R., Tarasofsky, R., and Carlarne, C. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Climate Change Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 56–71.Google Scholar

Gieryn, T. F. (1995). Boundaries of science. In: Jasanoff, S., Markle, G. E., Peterson, J. C. and Pinhch, T. (eds.), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. pp. 393–443.Google Scholar

Gieryn, T. F. (1999). Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Gieryn, T. F. (2002). What buildings do. Theory and Society, 31(1): 35–74.Google Scholar

Gieryn, T. F. (2018). Truth-Spots: How Places Make People Believe. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gilbert, M. (2002). Belief and acceptance as features of groups. Protosociology, 16: 35–69.Google Scholar

Gills, B. and Morgan, J. (2020). Global climate emergency: after COP24, climate science, urgency, and the threat to humanity. Globalizations, 17(6): 885–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Girod, B., Wiek, A., Mieg, H. and Hulme, M. (2009). The evolution of the IPCC’s emissions scenarios. Environmental Science & Policy, 12: 103–118.Google Scholar

Godal, O. (2003). The IPCC’s assessment of multidisciplinary issues: the case of greenhouse gas indices. Climatic Change, 58(3): 243–249.Google Scholar

Goeminne, G. (2013). Does the climate need consensus? The politics of climate change revisited. Symploke, 20(1–2): 147–161.Google Scholar

Grundmann, R. (2006). Ozone and climate: scientific consensus and leadership. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 31(1): 73–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Guardian, (2010a). US Embassy cables: US lobbied Rajendra Pachauri to help them block appointment of Iranian scientist. Guardian, 6.12.2010. Available at: www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/168194 (Accessed: 7 February 2022).Google Scholar

Guardian, (2010b). US Embassy cables: Norway supports US plan to block election of Iranian climate scientist. Guardian, 6.12.2010. Available at: www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/166258 (Accessed: 7 February 2022).Google Scholar

Guardian, (2010c). US Embassy cables: Brazil considers US plan to block election of Iranian climate scientist. Guardian, 6.12.2010. Available at: www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/166298 (Accessed: 7 February 2022).Google Scholar

Guillemot, H. (2010). Connections between climate simulations and observation in climate computer modeling. Scientist’s practices and ‘bottom-up epistemology’ lessons. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 41: 242–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Guillemot, H. (2017). The necessary and inaccessible 1.5° objective: A turning point in the relations between climate science and politics? In: Aykut, S. C., Foyer, J. and Morena, E. (eds.), Globalising the Climate: COP21 and the Climatisation of Global Debates. Abingdon: Routledge. pp. 39–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gulizia, C., Langendijk, G., Huang-Lachmann, J.-T., et al. (2019). Towards a more integrated role for early career researchers in the IPCC process. Climate Change, 159: 75–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gustafsson, K. M. (2018). Producing expertise. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity & Ecosystem Services’ socialisation of young scholars. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, 15(1): 21–39.Google Scholar

Gustafsson, K. M. (2021). Expert organizations’ institutional understanding of expertise and responsibility for the creation of the next generation of experts: comparing IPCC and IPBES. Ecosystems and People, 17(1): 47–56.Google Scholar

Gustafsson, K. M. and Berg, M. (2020). Early-career scientists in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. A moderate or radical path towards a deliberative future? Environmental Sociology, 6(3): 242–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gustafsson, K. M., Berg, M., Lidskog, R. and Löfmarck, E. (2019). Intersectional boundary work in socializing new experts. The case of IPBES. Ecosystems and People, 15(1): 181–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gustafsson, K. M., Diaz-Reviriego, I. and Turnhout, E. (2020). Building capacity for the science-policy interface on biodiversity and ecosystem services: activities, fellows, outcomes, and neglected capacity building needs. Earth System Governance, 4(100050): 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gustafsson, K. M. and Lidskog, R. (2018a). Organizing international experts: IPBES’s efforts to gain epistemic authority. Environmental Sociology, 4(4): 445–456.Google Scholar

Gustafsson, K. M. and Lidskog, R. (2018b). Boundary organizations and environmental governance: performance, institutional design, and conceptual development. Climate Risk Management, 19: 1–11.Google Scholar

Guston, D. H. (2001). Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Science Technology & Human Values, 26(4): 399–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Guston, D. H. (2006). On consensus and voting in science: from Asilomar to the National Toxicology Program. In: Frickel, S. and Moore, K. (eds.), The New Political Sociology of Science: Institutions, Networks and Power. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press. pp. 378–404.Google Scholar

Guterres, A. (2021). Secretary-General calls latest IPCC climate report ‘Code red for humanity’, stressing ‘irrefutable’ evidence of human influence. Available at: www.un.org/press/en/2021/sgsm20847.doc.htm (Accessed: 7 February 2022).Google Scholar

Gutiérrez, M., Johnson, S., Kulovesi, K., Muñoz, M. and Schipper, L. (2007). Summary of the 9th Session of IPCC Working Group III and 26th Session of the IPCC: 30 April– 4 May 2007, Earth Negotiations Bulletin, (321), International Institute for Sustainable Development – Reporting Services.Google Scholar

Gutiérrez, M., Kosolapova, E., Kulovesi, K. and Yamineva, Y. (2012). Summary of the 35th Session of the IPCC: 6–9 June 2012, Earth Negotiations Bulletin, 12 (547), International Institute for Sustainable Development – Reporting Services.Google Scholar

Haas, P. M. (1992). Epistemic communities and international-policy coordination – Introduction. International Organization, 46: 1–35.Google Scholar

Haas, P. M. (2004). When does power listen to truth? A constructivist approach to the policy process. Journal of European Public Policy, 11: 569–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haas, P. M. (2017). The epistemic authority of solution-oriented global environmental assessments. Environmental Science & Policy, 77: 221–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haas, P. M. and McCabe, C. (2001). Amplifiers or dampeners: international institutions and social learning in the management of global environmental risks. In: The Social Learning Group (eds.), Learning to Manage Global Environmental Risks: A Comparative History of Social Responses to Climate Change, Ozone Depletion and Acid Rain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. pp. 323–348.Google Scholar

Haas, P. M. and Stevens, C. (2011). Organized science, usable knowledge, and multilateral environmental governance. In: Lidskog, R. and Sundqvist, G. (eds.), Governing the Air: The Dynamics of Science, Policy, and Citizen Interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. pp. 125–162.Google Scholar

Haikola, S., Hansson, A. and Fridahl, M. (2019). Map-makers and navigators of politicised terrain: expert understandings of epistemological uncertainty in integrated assessment modelling of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. Futures, 114: 102472.Google Scholar

Hajer, M. A. (2012). A media storm in the world risk society: enacting scientific authority in the IPCC controversy (2009–10). Critical Policy Studies, 6(4): 452–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hansen, J. E. (2007). Scientific reticence and sea level rise. Environmental Research Letters, 2: 024002.Google Scholar

Hansson, A., Anshelm, J., Fridal, M., and Haikola, S. (2021). Boundary work and interpretations in the IPCC review process of the role of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) in limiting global warming to 1.5°C. Frontiers in Climate, 3: 643224.Google Scholar

Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3): 575–599.Google Scholar

Harold, J., Lorenzoni, I., Shipley, T. F. and Coventry, K. R. (2016). Cognitive and psychological science insights to improve climate change data visualization. Nature Climate Change, 6(12): 1080–1089.Google Scholar

Harold, J., Lorenzoni, I., Shipley, T. F. and Coventry, K. R. (2020). Communication of IPCC visuals: IPCC authors’ views and assessments of visual complexity. Climatic Change, 158: 255–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harper, K. C. (2003). Research from the boundary layer: civilian leadership, military funding and the development of Numerical Weather Prediction (1946–55). Social Studies of Science, 33(5): 667–696.Google Scholar

Haunschild, R., Bornmann, L. and Marx, W. (2016). Climate change research in view of bibliometrics. PLoS One, 11(7): e0160393.Google Scholar

Hausfather, Z. and Peters, G. (2020). Emissions – the ‘business as usual’ story is misleading. Nature, 577: 618–620.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Havstad, J. C. and Brown, M. J. (2017). Neutrality, relevance, prescription, and the IPCC. Public Affairs Quarterly, 31(4): 303–324.Google Scholar

Hays, S. P. (1999). Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency: The Progressive Conservation Movement, 1890–1920. No. 40. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hecht, A. D. and Tirpak, D. (1995). Framework agreement on climate change: a scientific and policy history. Climatic Change, (29): 371–402.Google Scholar

Hermansen, E. A. T., Lahn, B., Sundqvist, G. and Øye, E. (2021). Post-Paris policy relevance: lessons from the IPCC SR15 process. Climatic Change, 169(7): 1–18.Google Scholar

Hewitson, B., Waagsaether, K., Wohland, J., Kloppers, K. and Kara, T. (2017). Climate information websites: an evolving landscape. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 8: e470.Google Scholar

Heymann, M. (2010). The evolution of climate ideas and knowledge. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1(4): 581–597.Google Scholar

Heymann, M. and Hundebol, N. R. (2017). From heuristic to predictive. Making climate models into political instruments. In: Heymann, M., Gramelsberger, G. and Mahony, M. (eds.), Culture of Prediction in Atmospheric and Climate Science. Epistemic and Cultural Shifts in Computer-Based Modelling and Simulation. Abingdon: Routledge. pp. 120–136.Google Scholar

Hill, R., Adem, Ç., Alangui, W. V., et al. (2020). Working with indigenous, local and scientific knowledge in assessments of nature and nature’s linkages with people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 43: 8–20.Google Scholar

Hiramatsu, A., Mimura, N. and Sumi, A. (2008). A mapping of global warming research based on IPCC AR4. Sustainability Science, 3(2): 201–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ho-Lem, C., Zerriffi, H. and 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(4): 1308–1317.Google Scholar

Hoppe, I. and Rödder, S. (2019). Speaking with one voice for climate science – climate researchers’ opinion on the consensus policy of the IPCC. Journal of Science Communication, 18(03): a04.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hoppe, R. (1999). Policy analysis, science and politics: from ‘speaking truth to power’ to ‘making sense together’. Science and Public Policy, 26: 201–210.Google Scholar

Hoppe, R., Wesselink, A. and 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. T. (2007). An overview of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) and its process of science assessment. In: Hester, R. E. and Harrison, R. M. (eds.), Global Environmental Change. London: Royal Society of Chemistry. pp. 1–20.Google Scholar

Houghton, J. T. (2008). Madrid 1995: Diagnosing climate change. Nature, 455(7214): 737–738.Google Scholar

House of Commons (2010). The Disclosure of Climate Data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. London: Science and Technology Committee. Available at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/38703.htmGoogle Scholar

Hughes, H. R. (2012). Practices of Power and Knowledge in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Unpublished PhD thesis. Department of International Politics: Aberystwyth University, Wales.Google Scholar

Hughes, H. R. (2015). Bourdieu and the IPCC’s symbolic power. Global Environmental Politics, 15: 85–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hughes, H. R. and Paterson, M. (2017). Narrowing the climate field: the symbolic power of authors in the IPCC’s assessment of mitigation. Review of Policy Research, 34(6): 744–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hughes, H. R. and Vadrot, A. B. M. (2019). IPBES and the struggle over biocultural diversity. Global Environmental Politics, 19(2): 14–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hulme, M. (2009). Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hulme, M. (2010). Problems with making and governing global kinds of knowledge. Global Environmental Change, 20(4): 558–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hulme, M. (2011a). Reducing the future to climate: a story of climate determinism and reductionism. Osiris, 26(1): 245–266.Google Scholar

Hulme, M. (2011b). Meet the humanities. Nature Climate Change, 1(7): 177–179.Google Scholar

Hulme, M. (2013). Lessons from the IPCC: do scientific assessments need to be consensual to be authoritative? In: Doubleday, R. and Wilsdon, J. (eds.), Future Directions for Scientific Advice in Whitehall. Cambridge: Centre for Science and Policy. pp. 142–147.Google Scholar

Hulme, M. (2016). 1.5 °C and climate research after the Paris Agreement. Nature Climate Change, 6(3): 222–224.Google Scholar

Hulme, M. (2018). ‘Gaps’ in climate change knowledge: Do they exist? Can they be filled? Environmental Humanities, 10(1): 330–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hulme, M. (2019). Climate emergency politics is dangerous. Issues in Science and Technology, 36(1): 23–25.Google Scholar

Hulme, M., Lidskog, R., White, J. M. and Standring, A. (2020). Social scientific knowledge in times of crisis: what climate change can learn from coronavirus (and vice versa)? Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 11: e656.Google Scholar

Hulme, M. and Mahony, M. (2010). Climate change: what do we know about the IPCC? Progress in Physical Geography, 34(5): 705–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hulme, M., Zorita, E., Stocker, T. F., Price, J., and Christy, J. R. (2010). IPCC: cherish it, tweak it or scrap it? Nature, (463): 730–732.Google ScholarPubMed

IAC [InterAcademy Council] (2010). Climate Change Assessments: Review of the Processes and Procedures of the IPCC. Amsterdam, Netherlands. Available at: https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/IAC_report/IAC%20Report.pdf (Accessed: 15 January 2022).Google Scholar

IAMC (2017). IAMC Website, Scenario Working Group presentation. Available at: https://web.archive.org/web/20160819202205/http://www.globalchange.umd.edu/iamc/scientific-working-groups/scenarios/ (Accessed: 8 February 2022).Google Scholar

IEA [International Energy Agency] (2021). World Energy Outlook 2021. www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2021CrossRefGoogle Scholar

IISD (2014). Summary of the 10th Session of Working Group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Thirty-Eighth Session of the IPCC: 25-29 March 2014. Earth Negotiations Bulletin, 12(596): 1–20.Google Scholar

Inuit Circumpolar Council (2013). Application of Indigenous Knowledge in the Arctic Council. Available at: https://iccalaska.org/wp-icc/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Application-of-IK-in-the-Arctic-Council.pdf (Accessed: 8 February 2022).Google Scholar

Inuit Circumpolar Council (2021). Ethical and Equitable Engagement Synthesis Report. Available at: www.inuitcircumpolar.com/project/icc-ethical-and-equitable-engagement-synthesis-report/ (Accessed: 8 February 2022).Google Scholar

Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (2018). National Inuit Strategy on Research. Ottawa. Available at: www.itk.ca (Accessed: 11 August 2020).Google Scholar

IPCC (1988). Report of the First Session of the WMO/UNEP IPCC, 9-11 November 1988. Geneva.Google Scholar

IPCC (1990a). Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment. Houghton, J. T., Jenkins, G. J. and Ephraums, J. J. (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

IPCC (1990b). Climate Change: The IPCC Response Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

IPCC (1991). IPCC-7. Report of the 5th Session of the WMO/UNEP Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (Geneva, 13–15 March 1991). pp. 22–23.Google Scholar

IPCC (1996). Climate Change 1995 – The Science of Climate Change: Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Houghton, J. T., Meiro Filho, L. G., Callendar, B. A., et al. (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

IPCC (2003). Proposal for handling emissions scenarios related issues in AR4. Annex 5 in: Report of the 21st Session of the IPCC (Vienna, 3 and 6–7 November 2003).Google Scholar

IPCC (2005). Guidance Notes for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on Addressing Uncertainties. Geneva: IPCC. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-uncertaintyguidancenote-1.pdf (Access 8 February 2022).Google Scholar

IPCC (2006a). Policy and Process for Admitting Observer Organizations (adopted in 2006 and last amended in 2012). Geneva: IPCC. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/09/ipcc-principles-observer-org-1.pdf (Accessed: 25 January 2022).Google Scholar

IPCC (2006b). Further work of the IPCC on emission scenarios. Annex 4 in: Report of the 25th Session of the IPCC (Port Louis, Mauritius, 26-28 April 2006). Available at: www.ipcc.ch/meeting-doc/25th-session-of-the-ipcc/Google Scholar

IPCC (2009a). Use of Funds from The Nobel Peace Prize. IPCC-XXX/Doc.8 in: Report of the 30th Session of the IPCC. Antalya, Turkey, 21–23 April 2009. Geneva: IPCC.Google Scholar

IPCC (2009b). Improving Participation of Developing/EIT Countries in the IPCC: Summary and Recommendations. IPCC-XXXI/Doc.11 in: Report of the 31st Session of the IPCC. Geneva: IPCC. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/meeting-doc/ipcc-31-and-plenary-sessions-of-the-three-ipcc-working-groups/ (Accessed: 8 February 2022).Google Scholar

IPCC (2009c). Report of the 30th Session of the IPCC (Antalya, Turkey, 21–23 April 2009), Geneva: IPCC. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/final_report_30.pdf (Accessed: 25 January 2022).Google Scholar

IPCC (2011). Decisions Taken with Respect to the Review of IPCC Processes and Procedures Communications Strategy (Report of the 33rd Session of the IPCC, 10–13 May 2011, Abu Dhabi). Geneva: IPCC. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/doc13_p33_review_tg_proposal_communications_strategy.pdf (Accessed: 30 July 2021).Google Scholar

IPCC (2012a). Progress Report and Planning for the Next Round of the Scholarship Programme. IPCC-XXXV/Doc. 8 in: Report of the 35th Session of the IPCC. Geneva, Switzerland, June 6-9, 2012. Geneva: IPCC.Google Scholar

IPCC (2012b). Workshop Report of the IPCC Workshop on Socio-economic Scenarios. IPCC Working Group III Technical Support Unit, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact and Research, Potsdam Germany. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/publication/ipcc-workshop-on-socio-economic-scenarios/ (Accessed: 8 February 2022).Google Scholar

IPCC (2013a). Procedures for the Preparation, Review, Acceptance, Adoption, Approval and Publication of IPCC Reports. Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work. Last amended 2013. Geneva: IPCC. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/09/ipcc-principles-appendix-a-final.pdf (Accessed: 6 February 2022).Google Scholar

IPCC (2013b). About the IPCC: Organization. (Updated). Geneva: IPCC. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml#.UcLdOvnqmSo (Accessed: 8 February 2022).Google Scholar

IPCC (2014a). Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madrugada, R., Sokona, Y., et al. (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

IPCC (2014b). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Pachauri, R. K. and Meyer, L. A. (eds.). Geneva: IPCC. www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/Google Scholar

IPCC (2015a). Assessing Transformation Pathways. Chapter 6 in: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madrugada, R., Sokona, Y., et al. (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 413–510. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415416 (Accessed: 30 December 2020).Google Scholar

IPCC (2015b). IPCC Scholarship Programme. IPCC-XLII/INF. 10 in Report of the 42nd Session of the IPCC. Dubrovnik, Croatia, 5–8 October 2015. Geneva: IPCC.Google Scholar

IPCC (2016a). IPCC Scholarship Programme. IPCC-XLIV/Doc. 10 in Report of the 44th Session of the IPCC. Bangkok, Thailand, 17–20 October 2016. Geneva: IPCC.Google Scholar

IPCC (2016b). Meeting Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Expert Meeting on Communication. Lynn, J., Araya, M., Christophersen, Ø., et al. (eds.). Geneva: IPCC/WMO.Google Scholar

IPCC (2016c). Review of the IPCC Communication Strategy. IPCC-XLIV/Doc.6. 44th Session of the IPCC, Bangkok, Thailand. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/apps/eventmanager/documents/40/200920160710-Doc.6_ReviewComsStrat.pdf (Accessed: 12 February 2022).Google Scholar

IPCC (2016d). Expert Meeting on the Future of the Task Group on Data and Scenario Support for Impacts and Climate Analysis (TGICA). Shongwe, M., Tall, A., Wratt, D., et al. (eds.). WMO. Geneva: Switzerland. Available at: https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/EMR_TGICA_Future.pdf (Accessed: 6 November 2021).Google Scholar

IPCC (2017a). Report of the 46th Session of the IPCC. Montreal, Canada, 6–10 September, 2017. Geneva: IPCC. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/meeting-doc/ipcc-46/ (Accessed: 22 February 2022).Google Scholar

IPCC (2017b). Meeting Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Expert Meeting on Mitigation, Sustainability and Climate Stabilization Scenarios. London: IPCC Working Group III Technical Support Unit, Imperial College London.Google Scholar

IPCC (2017c). Working Group I Contribution to the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) Background information. IPCC Working Group I – 13th Session. Montreal, 7–8 September 2017. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/04/040820170312-WGI_inf1_background_information.pdf (Accessed: 6 November 2021).Google Scholar

IPCC (2017d). Chapter Outline of the Working Group II Contribution to the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6). Decision. As Adopted by the Panel at the 46th Session of the IPCC. Montreal, Canada, 6–10 September 2017. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/AR6_WGII_outlines_P46.pdf (Accessed: 6 November 2021).Google Scholar

IPCC (2018a). Global Warming of 1.5 C. An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5 C above Pre-Industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways. Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pörtner, H.-O., et al. (eds.). Geneva: IPCC. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ (Accessed: 12 February 2022).Google Scholar

IPCC (2018b). IPCC Factsheet: How Does the IPCC Select its Authors? Geneva: IPCC. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/FS_select_authors.pdf (Accessed: 29 October 2021).Google Scholar

IPCC (2018c). Report of the 48th Session of the IPCC. Incheon, Republic of Korea, 1–5 October 2018. Geneva: IPCC. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/12/final_report_p48.pdf (Accessed: 1 March 2022).Google Scholar

IPCC (2018d). Report of the 47th Session of the IPCC. Paris, France, 13–16 March 2018. Geneva: IPCC. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/event/47th-session-of-the-ipcc/ (Accessed: 8 February 2022).Google Scholar

IPCC (2018e). Proposed Terms of Reference for the Task Group on the Organization of the Future Work of the IPCC in Light of the Global Stocktake. Geneva: IPCC. Available at: https://archive.ipcc.ch/organization/gst.shtml (Accessed: 25 January 2022).Google Scholar

IPCC (2018f). Report by the Ad Hoc Task Force on the Future of the Task Group on Data and Scenario Support for Impact and Climate Analysis. Prepared for: Forty-Seventh Session of the IPCC, Paris, France, 13–16 March 2018. IPCC-XLVII/Doc. 9. Available at: https://archive.ipcc.ch/apps/eventmanager/documents/49/020320180441-Doc.%209-ATF-TGICA.pdf (Accessed: 6 November 2021).Google Scholar

IPCC (2018g). Expert Meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on Assessing Climate Information for Regions. Moufouma-Okia, W., Masson-Delmotte, V., Pörtner, H.-O., et al. (eds.), IPCC Working Group I Technical Support Unit, Université Paris Saclay, Saint Aubin: France. Available at: https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/AR6_WGI_EM_Regions.pdf (Accessed: 6 November 2021).Google Scholar

IPCC (2019a). Information for participants. In: Report of the 50th Session of the IPCC. Geneva, Switzerland WMO headquarters August 2-6, 2019. Geneva: IPCC. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/06/IPCC-50.-INF-NOTE-Geneva_V5.pdf (Accessed: 15 January 2022).Google Scholar

IPCC (2019b). Report from the Task Group on Gender. Geneva: IPCC. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/01/110520190810-Doc.-10-Rev.1TG-Gender.pdf (Accessed: 29 October 2021).Google Scholar

IPCC (2019c). Report of the 49th Session of the IPCC. Kyoto, Japan, 8–12 May 2019. Geneva: IPCC.Google Scholar

IPCC (2019d). IPCC Scholarship Programme. IPCC-XLIX/Doc. 9, Rev.1 In: Report of the 49th Session of the IPCC. Kyoto, Japan, 8–12 May 2019. Geneva: IPCC.Google Scholar

IPCC (2019e). Progress report of the task group on the organization of the future work of the IPCC in light of the global stocktake. IPCC-XLIX/INF. 6, Agenda Item: 6.2 in: Report of the 49th Session of the IPCC. Geneva: IPCC. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/01/100420191037-INF6Stocktake.pdf (Accessed: 25 January 2022).Google Scholar

IPCC (2019f). Technical Summary. In: Pörtner, H. O., Roberts, D. C., Masson-Delmotte, V., et al., IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

IPCC (2019g). Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems. Shukla, P. R., Skea, J., Calvo Buendia, E., et al. (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

IPCC (2020a). What Is an Expert Reviewer of IPCC Reports? Geneva: IPCC. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/2020/12/04/what-is-an-expert-reviewer-of-ipcc-reports/ (Accessed: 5 January 2022).Google Scholar

IPCC (2020b). The IPCC’s First Virtual Lead Author Meeting: An Evaluation by the Technical Support Unit of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2020/07/IPCC-WG-III-TSU-Report-Evaluating_the_IPCCs_first_Virtual_Lead_Author_Meeting.pdf (Accessed: 15 January 2022).Google Scholar

IPCC (2021a). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., et al. (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

IPCC (2021b). About the IPCC. Geneva: IPCC. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/about/ (Accessed: 22 June 2021).Google Scholar

IPCC (2021c). About the Scholarship Programme. Geneva: IPCC. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/about/scholarship/ (Accessed: 30 December 2021).Google Scholar

IPCC (2021d). IPCC WGI Interactive Atlas. Geneva: IPCC. Available at: https://interactive-atlas.ipcc.ch/ (Accessed: 8 February 2022).Google Scholar

IPCC (2021e). Review of the IPCC Communications Strategy. IPCC-LIII(bis)/INF. 12 in: Report of the 53rd Session of the IPCC. Electronic Session, 22–26 March 2021. Geneva: IPCC. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/meeting-doc/ipcc-53-bis/ (Accessed: 8 February 2022).Google Scholar

IPCC (2021f). IPCC Communications Strategy Update. IPCC-LIII(bis)/INF. 13 in: Report of the 53rd Session of the IPCC. Electronic Session, 22–26 March 2021. Geneva: IPCC. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/meeting-doc/ipcc-53-bis/ (Accessed: 8 February 2022).Google Scholar

IPCC (2022). Summary for Policymakers. In: Pörtner, H. O., et al. (eds.), Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–35.Google Scholar

IPCC (n.d.(a)). How Does the IPCC Work? Geneva: IPCC. Available at: https://archive.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_structure.shtml (Accessed: 15 January 2022).Google Scholar

IPCC (n.d.(b)). IPCC Focal Points. Geneva: IPCC. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/apps/contact/interface/focalpoints.php (Accessed: 19 January 2022).Google Scholar

Jabbour, J. and Flachsland, C. (2017). 40 years of global environmental assessments: a retrospective analysis. Environmental Science & Policy, 77: 193–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Janzwood, S. (2020). Confident, likely, or both? The implementation of the uncertainty language framework in IPCC Special Reports. Climatic Change, 162(3): 1655–1675.Google Scholar

Jasanoff, S. (1987). Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science. Social Studies of Science, 17: 195–230.Google Scholar

Jasanoff, S. (1990). The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Jasanoff, S. (ed.) (2004). States of Knowledge: Co-production of Science and the Social Order. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Jasanoff, S. (2005). Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Jasanoff, S. (2010a). Testing time for climate science. Science, 328(5979): 695–696.Google Scholar

Jasanoff, S. (2010b). A new climate for society. Theory, Culture & Society, 27(2–3): 233–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jasanoff, S. (2011a). Constitutional moments in governing science and technology. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17: 621–638. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9302-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jasanoff, S. (2011b). Cosmopolitan knowledge: climate science and global civic epistemology. In: Dryzek, J., Norgaard, R. B. and Schlosberg, D. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 129–143.Google Scholar

Jasanoff, S. (2019). Controversy studies. In: Ritzer, G. and Rojek, C. (eds.), The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar

Jasanoff, S. and Kim, S.-H. (eds.) (2015). Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Johnson, J. T., Howitt, R., Cajete, G., et al. (2016). Weaving Indigenous and sustainability sciences to diversify our methods. Sustainability Science, 11: 1–11.Google Scholar

Jomisko, R. L. (2013). Harry’s code: an interview with Harry Collins. Nordic Journal of Science and Technology Studies, 1(1): 25–29.Google Scholar

Jordan, A., Huitema, D., Van Asselt, H. and Forster, J. (eds.) (2018). Governing Climate Change: Polycentricity in Action? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kanerva, J. and Krizsán, A. (2021). Discouraging climate action through implicit argumentation: an analysis of linguistic polyphony in the Summary for Policymakers by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Discourse & Communication, 15(6): 609–628.Google Scholar

Kear, M. (2016). The new prometheans: technological optimism in climate change mitigation modelling. Environmental Values, 25(1): 7–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Keohane, R. O. (2015). The global politics of climate change: challenge for political science. PS: Political Science & Politics, 48(1): 19–26.Google Scholar

Keppo, I., Butnar, I., Bauer, N., et al. (2021). Exploring the possibility space: taking stock of the diverse capabilities and gaps in integrated assessment models. Environmental Research Letters, 16: 053006.Google Scholar

Knol, A. B., Slottje, P., van der Sluijs, J. P., et al. (2010). The use of expert elicitation in environmental health impact assessment: a seven step procedure. Environmental Health, 9(19):1–16.Google Scholar

Knorr Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic Cultures: How the Science Makes Knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Knutti, R., Masson, D. and Gettelman, A. (2013). Climate model genealogy: generation CMIP5 and how we got there. Geophysical Research Letters, 40(6): 1194–1199.Google Scholar

Knutti, R., Rogelj, J., Sedláček, J. and Fischer, E. M. (2016). A scientific critique of the two-degree climate change target. Nature Geoscience, 9(1): 13–18.Google Scholar

Kouw, M. and Petersen, A. (2018). Diplomacy in action: Latourian politics and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Science and Technology Studies, 31(1): 52–68.Google Scholar

Kovach, M. (2009). Indigenous Methodologies: Characteristics, Conversations and Contexts. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar

Kowarsch, M., Garardm, J., Riousset, P., et al. (2016). Scientific assessments to facilitate deliberative policy learning. Palgrave Communications, 2: 16092.Google Scholar

Kowarsch, M. and Jabbour, J. (2017). Solution-oriented global environmental assessments: opportunities and challenges. Environmental Science & Policy, 77: 187–192.Google Scholar

Kowarsch, M., Jabbour, J., Flaschland, C., et al. (2017). A road map for global environmental assessments. Nature Climate Change, 7(6): 379–382.Google Scholar

Kunelius, R., Eide, E., Tegelberg, M. and Yagodin, D. (eds.) (2017). Media and Global Climate Knowledge: Journalism and the IPCC. New York: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kuramochi, T., Roelfsema, M., Hasu, A., et al. (2020). Beyond national climate action: the impact of region, city, and business commitments on global greenhouse gas emissions. Climate Policy, 20(3): 275–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lahn, B. (2018). In the light of equity and science: scientific expertise and climate justice after Paris. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 18: 29–43.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.Google Scholar

Lahn, B. and Sundqvist, G. (2017). Science as a ‘fixed point’? Quantification and boundary objects in international climate politics. Environmental Science & Policy, 67: 8–15.Google Scholar

Lahsen, M. (1999). The detection and attribution of conspiracies: the controversy over Chapter 8. Chapter 5 in: Marcus, G. E. (ed.), Paranoia within Reason: A Casebook on Conspiracy as Explanation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 111–136.Google Scholar

Lahsen, M. (2009). A science–policy interface in the global south: the politics of carbon sinks and science in Brazil. Climatic Change, 97(3): 339–372.Google Scholar

Lahsen, M. (2016). Trust through participation? Problems of knowledge in climate decision making. In: Pettinger, M. E. (ed.), The Social Construction of Climate Change: Power, Knowledge, Norms, Discourses. Abingdon: Routledge. pp. 197–220.Google Scholar

Lahsen, M., Couto, G. D. and Lorenzoni, I. (2020). When climate change is not blamed: the politics of disaster attribution in international perspective. Climatic Change, 158: 213–233.Google Scholar

Laidler, G. J., Hirose, T., Kapfer, M., Ikummaq, T., Joamie, E., and Elee, P. (2011). Evaluating the Floe Edge Service: how well can SAR imagery address Inuit community concerns around sea ice change and travel safety? The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe Canadien, 55(1): 91–107.Google Scholar

Latour, B. (1993). We Have Never Been Modern. New York: Harvester/Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar

Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Lawler, A. (2002). Pachauri defeats Watson in new chapter for global panel. Science, 296 (5568): 632.Google Scholar

Leclerc, O. (2009). Les règles de production des énoncés au sein du Groupe d’experts intergouvernemental sur l’évolution du climat. In: R. Encinas de Muñagorri, (ed.), Expertise et Gouvernance du Changement Climatique. Paris: LGDJ. pp. 59–92.Google Scholar

Lee, H. (2015). Turning the focus to solutions. Science, 350: 1007.Google Scholar

Leggett, J., Pepper, W. J. and Wart, R. J. (1992). Emissions scenarios for IPCC: an update. In: Houghton, J. T., Callander, B. A. and Varney, S. K. (eds.), Climate Change 1992. The Supplementary Report to the IPCC Scientific Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lenhard, J. and Winsberg, E. (2010). Holism, entrenchment, and the future of climate model pluralism. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 41(3): 253–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lidskog, R. and Sundqvist, G. (2015). When does science matter? International relations meets science and technology studies. Global Environmental Politics. 15(1): 1–20.Google Scholar

Lim, M., Lynch, A. J., Fernandez-Llamazares, A., et al. (2017). Early-career experts essential for planetary sustainability. Current Opinion Environmental Sustainability, 29: 151e157.Google Scholar

Limoges, C. (1993). Expert knowledge and decision-making in controversy contexts. Public Understanding of Science, 2: 417–426.Google Scholar

Linnér, B.-O. and Wibeck, V. (2019). Sustainability Transformations: Agents and Drivers Across Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Liverman, D., von Hedemann, N., Nying’uro, P., et al. (2022). Survey of gender bias in the IPCC. Nature, 602: 30–32.Google Scholar

Livingstone, D. (2003). Putting Science in Its Place: Geographies of Scientific Knowledge. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Livingston, J. E., Lövbrand, E. and Alkan Olsson, J. (2018). From climates multiple to climate singular: maintaining policy-relevance in the IPCC synthesis report. Environmental Science & Policy, 90: 83–90.Google Scholar

Livingston, J. E. and Rummukainen, M. (2020). Taking science by surprise: the knowledge politics of the IPCC special report on 1.5 degrees. Environmental Science & Policy, 112: 10–16.Google Scholar

Loreau, M., Oteng-Yeboah, A., Orroyo, M. T. K., et al. (2006). Diversity without representation. Nature, 442(7100): 245–246.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Lövbrand, E. (2004). Bridging political expectations and scientific limitations in climate risk management – on the uncertain effects of international carbon sink policies. Climatic Change, 67(2–3): 449–460.Google Scholar

Lövbrand, E. (2009). Revisiting the politics of expertise in light of the Kyoto negotiations on land use change and forestry. Forest Policy and Economics, 11(5–6): 404–412.Google Scholar

Lövbrand, E., Beck, S., Chilvers, J., et al. (2015). Who speaks for the future of Earth? How critical social science can extend the conversation on the Anthropocene. Global Environmental Change, 32: 211–218.Google Scholar

Low, S. and Schäfer, S. (2020). Is bio-energy carbon capture and storage (BECCS) feasible? The contested authority of integrated assessment modeling. Energy Research and Social Science, 60: 101326.Google 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

Lynas, M. (2011). Conflicted roles over renewables. Nature Climate Change, 1(8): 228–229.Google Scholar

Lynn, J. and Peeva, N. (2021). Communications in the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report cycle. Climatic Change, 169: 18.Google Scholar

Maas, T. Y., Montana, J., van der Hel, S., et al. (2021). Effectively empowering: a different look at bolstering the effectiveness of global environmental assessments. Environmental Science & Policy, 123: 210–219.Google Scholar

Mach, K. J. and Field, C. B. (2017). Toward the next generation of assessment. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 42: 569–597.Google Scholar

Mach, K. J., Mastrandrea, M. D., Freeman, P. T., et al. (2017). Unleashing expert judgment in assessment. Global Environmental Change, 44: 1–14.Google Scholar

MacKenzie, D. A. (2006). An Engine, Not a Camera: How Financial Models Shape Markets. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

MacKenzie, D. (2009). Making things the same: gases, emission rights and the politics of carbon markets. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(3–4): 440–455.Google Scholar

Mahony, M. (2013). Boundary spaces: science, politics and the epistemic geographies of climate change in Copenhagen, 2009. Geoforum, 49: 29–39.Google Scholar

Mahony, M. (2014a). The IPCC and the geographies of credibility. History of Meteorology, 6: 95–112.Google Scholar

Mahony, M. (2014b). The predictive state: science, territory and the future of the Indian climate. Social Studies of Science, 44(1): 109–133.Google Scholar

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: 153–167.Google Scholar

Mahony, M. and Hulme, M. (2018). Epistemic geographies of climate change: science, space and politics. Progress in Human Geography, 42(3): 395–424.Google Scholar

Maldonado, J., Bennett, T. M. B., Chief, K., et al. (2016). Engagement with indigenous peoples and honoring traditional knowledge systems. Climatic Change, 135: 111–126.Google Scholar

Malone, E. L. and Rayner, S. (2001). Role of the research standpoint in integrating global-scale and local-scale research. Climate Research, 19(2): 173–178.Google Scholar

Manning, M. R., Petit, M., Easterling, D., et al. (2004). IPCC Workshop on Describing Scientific Uncertainties in Climate Change to Support Analysis of Risk and of Options. Geneva: IPCC. Available at: https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/ipcc-workshop-2004-may.pdf (Accessed: 12 February 2022).Google Scholar

Marres, N. (2018). Why we can’t have our facts back. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society, 4: 423–443.Google Scholar

Martin, B. (2014). The Controversy Manual. Sparsnäs: Irene Publishing.Google Scholar

Martinez, J. (2020). The great smog of London. Encyclopaedia Britannica. Available at: www.britannica.com/event/Great-Smog-of-London (Accessed: 16 June 2021).Google Scholar

Masood, E. and Ochert, A. (1995). UN climate change report turns up the heat. Nature, 378: 119.Google Scholar

Mastrandrea, M. D., Field, C. B., Stocker, T. F., et al. (2010). Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties. Geneva: IPCC. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2017/08/AR5_Uncertainty_Guidance_Note.pdf (Accessed: 12 February 2022).Google Scholar

Mastrandrea, M. D. and Mach, K. J. (2011). Treatment of uncertainties in IPCC Assessment Reports: past approaches and considerations for the Fifth Assessment Report. Climatic Change, 108(4): 659–673.Google Scholar

Mastrandrea, M. D., Mach, K. J., Plattner, G. K., et al. (2011). The IPCC AR5 guidance note on consistent treatment of uncertainties: a common approach across the working groups. Climatic Change, 108(4): 675–691.Google Scholar

McConnell, F. (2019). Rethinking the geographies of diplomacy. Diplomatica, 1: 46–55.Google Scholar

McCright, A. M. and Dunlap, R. E. (2010). Anti-reflexivity the American conservative movement’s success in undermining climate science and policy. Theory Culture & Society, 27: 100–133.Google Scholar

McIntyre, S. and McKitrick, R. (2005). The M&M critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere climate index: update and implications. Energy & Environment, 16(1): 69–100.Google Scholar

McMahon, R., Stauffacher, M. and Knutti, R. (2015). The unseen uncertainties in climate change: reviewing comprehension of an IPCC scenario graph. Climatic Change, 133(2): 141–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McMahon, R., Stauffacher, M. and Knutti, R. (2016). The scientific veneer of IPCC visuals, Climatic Change, 138 (3–4): 369–381.Google Scholar

Medin, D. L. and Lee, C. D. (2012). Presidential column: diversity makes better science. APS. Association for Psychological Science. Available at: www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2012/may-june-12/diversity-makes-better-science.html (Accessed: 29 October 2021).Google Scholar

Merton, R. K. (1948). The self-fulfilling prophecy. The Antioch Review, 8(2): 193–210.Google Scholar

Miguel, J., Mahony, M., and Monteiro, M (2019). A ‘geopolítica infraestrutural’ do conhecimento climático: o Modelo Brasileiro do Sistema Terrestre e a divisão Norte-Sul do conhecimento. Sociologias, 21: 44–75.Google Scholar

Miller, B. (2013). When is a consensus knowledge-based? Distinguishing shared knowledge from mere agreement. Synthese, 190(7): 1293–1316.Google Scholar

Miller, C. A. (2001a). Scientific internationalism in American foreign policy: The case of meteorology. In: Miller, C. A. and Edwards, P. N. (eds.), Changing the Atmosphere: Expert Knowledge and Environmental Governance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. pp. 167–218.Google Scholar

Miller, C. A. (2001b). Hybrid management: boundary organizations, science policy, and environmental governance in the climate regime. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 4(26): 478–500.Google Scholar

Miller, C. A. (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. London: Routledge. pp. 46–66.Google Scholar

Miller, C. A. (2008). Civic epistemologies: constituting knowledge and order in political communities. Sociology Compass, 2(6): 1896–1919.Google Scholar

Miller, C. A. (2009). Epistemic constitutionalism in international governance: the case of climate change. In: Heazle, M., Griffiths, M. and Conley, T. (eds.), Foreign Policy Challenges in the 21st Century. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. pp. 141–163.Google Scholar

Miller, C. A. (2015a). Globalizing security: science and the transformation of contemporary political imagination. In: Jasanoff, S. and Kim, S. H. (eds.), Dreamscapes of Modernity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 277–299.Google Scholar

Miller, C. A. (2015b). Knowledge and democracy: the epistemics of self-governance. In: Hilgartner, S., Miller, C. and Hagendijk, R. (eds.), Science and Democracy. London: Routledge. pp. 216–237.Google Scholar

Miller, C. A. and Edwards, P. N. (eds.) (2001). Changing the Atmosphere: Expert Knowledge and Environmental Governance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Miller, C. A. and Muñoz-Erickson, T. A. (2018). Designing Knowledge. Tempe: Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes.Google Scholar

Minx, J. C., Callaghan, M., Lamb, W. F., Garard, J., and Edenhofer, O. (2017). Learning about climate change solutions in the IPCC and beyond. Environmental Science & Policy, 77: 252–259.Google Scholar

Monteiro, M., Seixas, S., and Vieira, S. (2014). The politics of Amazonian deforestation: environmental policy and climate change knowledge. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 5: 689–701.Google Scholar

Moore, A. (2017). Critical Elitism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Moran, G. (1998). Silencing Scientists and Scholars in Other Fields: Power, Paradigm Controls, Peer Review, and Scholarly Communication. Greenwich, CT: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar

Morelli, A., Johansen, T. G., Pidcock, R., et al. (2021). Co-designing engaging and accessible data visualisations: a case study of the IPCC reports. Climatic Change, 168: 26.Google Scholar

Morseletto, P., Biermann, F. and Pattberg, P. (2017). Governing by targets: reductio ad unum and evolution of the two-degree climate target. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 17(5): 655–676.Google Scholar

Moss, R. H. (1995). The IPCC: policy relevant not driven: scientific assessment. Global Environmental Change, 5: 171–174.Google Scholar

Moss, R. H., Babiker, M., Brinkman, S., et al. (2008). Towards New Scenarios for Analysis of Emissions, Climate Change, Impacts, and Response Strategies. Geneva: IPCC.Google Scholar

Moss, R. H., Edmonds, J. A., Hibbard, K. A., et al. (2010). The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment. Nature, 463(7282): 747–756.Google Scholar

Moss, R. H. and Schneider, S. (2000). Uncertainties. In: Pachauri, R., Taniguchi, T. and Tanaka, K. (eds.), Guidance Papers on the Cross Cutting Issues of the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC. Geneva: IPCC. pp. 33–52.Google Scholar

Najam, A., Rahman, A. A., Huq, S., and Sokona, Y. (2003). Integrating sustainable development into the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Policy, 3(S1): S9–S17.Google Scholar

Nakicenovic, N., Alcamo, J., Davis, G., et al. (2000). Special Report on Emissions Scenarios. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Nalau, J., Becken, S., Schliephack, J., et al. (2018). The role of indigenous and traditional knowledge in ecosystem-based adaptation: a review of the literature and case studies from the Pacific Islands. Weather, Climate, and Society, 10(4): 851–865.Google Scholar

National Grid (2021). Future Energy Scenarios 2021. London. Available at: www.nationalgrideso.com/document/202851/download (Accessed: 21 July 2021).Google Scholar

Nerlich, N. and Jaspal, R. (2014). Images of extreme weather: symbolising human responses to climate change. Science as Culture, 23(2): 253–276.Google Scholar

Newell, P. (2006). Climate for Change: Non-state Actors and the Global Politics of the Greenhouse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Nightingale, A. J., Eriksen, S., Taylor, M., et al. (2020). Beyond technical fixes: climate solutions and the great derangement. Climate and Development, 12(4): 343–352.Google Scholar

Nocke, T. (2014). Images for data analysis: the role of visualisation in climate research processes. In: Schneider, B. and Nocke, T. (eds.), Image Politics of Climate Change: Visualizations, Imaginations, Documentations. New York: Columbia University Press. pp. 54–77.Google Scholar

Nordlund, G. (2008). Futures research and the IPCC assessment study on the effects of climate change. Futures, 40(10): 873–876.Google Scholar

NRC [National Research Council] (1979). Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12181.Google Scholar

OAS [Organization of American States] (2016). American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Washington, DC: Organisation of American States.Google Scholar

O’Brien, K. (2012). Global environmental change II: from adaptation to deliberative transformation. Progress in Human Geography, 36(5): 667–676.Google Scholar

O’Neill, B. C., Carter, T., Ebi, K., et al. (2020). Achievements and needs for the climate change scenario framework. Nature Climate Change, 10(12): 1074–1084.Google Scholar

O’Neill, B. C., Kriegler, E., Riahi, K., et al. (2014). A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of shared socioeconomic pathways. Climatic Change, 122: 387–400.Google Scholar