Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-768dbb666b-dkbpd Total loading time: 0.361 Render date: 2023-02-05T17:35:30.568Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true
  • English
Philosophy of Science Philosophy of Science

Article contents

Climate Change Assessments: Confidence, Probability, and Decision

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Richard Bradley ,
Casey Helgeson  and
Brian Hill
Get access Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has developed a novel framework for assessing and communicating uncertainty in the findings published in its periodic assessment reports. But how should these uncertainty assessments inform decisions? We take a formal decision-making perspective to investigate how scientific input formulated in the IPCC’s novel framework might inform decisions in a principled way through a normative decision model.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 84 , Issue 3 , July 2017 , pp. 500 - 522
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adler, C. E., and Hadorn, G. H.. 2014. “The IPCC and Treatment of Uncertainties: Topics and Sources of Dissensus.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 5 (5): 663–76.Google Scholar
Binmore, K. 2008. Rational Decisions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, R. 2009. “Revising Incomplete Attitudes.” Synthese 171 (2): 235–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broome, J. 2012. Climate Matters: Ethics in a Warming World. Norton Global Ethics Series. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Chateauneuf, A., and Faro, J. H.. 2009. “Ambiguity through Confidence Functions.” Journal of Mathematical Economics 45 (9): 535–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellsberg, D. 1961. “Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 75 (4): 643–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gärdenfors, P., and Sahlin, N.-E.. 1982. “Unreliable Probabilities, Risk Taking, and Decision Making.” Synthese 53 (3): 361–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genest, C., and Zidek, J. V.. 1986. “Combining Probability Distributions: A Critique and an Annotated Bibliography.” Statistical Science 1 (1): 114–35.Google Scholar
Ghirardato, P., Maccheroni, F., and Marinacci, M.. 2004. “Differentiating Ambiguity and Ambiguity Attitude.” Journal of Economic Theory 118 (2): 133–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilboa, I., and Marinacci, M.. 2013. “Ambiguity and the Bayesian Paradigm.” In Advances in Economics and Econometrics: Tenth World Congress, Vol. 1, ed. D. Acemoglu, M. Arellano, and E. Dekel. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilboa, I., Postlewaite, A., and Schmeidler, D.. 2009. “Is It Always Rational to Satisfy Savage’s Axioms?” Economics and Philosophy 25 (Special Issue 3): 285–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postlewaite, A., and Schmeidler, D. 2012. “Rationality of Belief, or Why Savage’s Axioms Are Neither Necessary Nor Sufficient for Rationality.” Synthese 187 (1): 11–31.Google Scholar
Gilboa, I., and Schmeidler, D.. 1989. “Maxmin Expected Utility with Non-unique Prior.” Journal of Mathematical Economics 18 (2): 141–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, B. 2013. “Confidence and Decision.” Games and Economic Behavior 82:675–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, B. 2016. “Confidence in Beliefs and Rational Decision Making.” Unpublished manuscript, HEC Paris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2013. “Summary for Policymakers.” In Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis; Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. Stocker, T. F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S. K., Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., and Midgley, P. M.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Joyce, J. M. 2010. “A Defense of Imprecise Credences in Inference and Decision Making.” Philosophical Perspectives 24 (1): 281–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keynes, J. M. 1921/1921. A Treatise on Probability. Vol. 8 of The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Klibanoff, P., Marinacci, M., and Mukerji, S.. 2005. “A Smooth Model of Decision Making under Ambiguity.” Econometrica 73 (6): 1849–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maccheroni, F., Marinacci, M., and Rustichini, A.. 2006. “Ambiguity Aversion, Robustness, and the Variational Representation of Preferences.” Econometrica 74 (6): 1447–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manning, M. R. 2005. “Guidance Notes for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on Addressing Uncertainties.” Technical report, IPCC, Geneva.Google Scholar
Mastrandrea, M. D., et al. 2010. “Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties.” Technical report, IPCC, Geneva. http://www.ipcc.ch.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): 659–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mastrandrea, M. D., Mach, K. J., Plattner, G.-K., Edenhofer, O., Stocker, T. F., Field, C. B., Ebi, K. L., and Matschoss, P. R.. 2011. “The IPCC AR5 Guidance Note on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties: A Common Approach across the Working Groups.” Climatic Change 108 (4): 675–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meehl, G. A., et al. 2007. “Global Climate Projections.” In Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis; Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K. B., Tignor, M., and Miller, H. L.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Moss, R. H., and Schneider, S. H.. 2000. “Uncertainties in the IPCC TAR: Recommendations to Lead Authors for More Consistent Assessment and Reporting.” In Guidance Papers on the Cross Cutting Issues of the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC, ed. Pachauri, R., Taniguchi, T., and Tanaka, K.. IPCC Supporting Material. Geneva: IPCC.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. 1974. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. 6th ed. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Shapiro, H. T., et al. 2010. “Climate Change Assessments: Review of the Processes and Procedures of the IPCC.” Technical report, InterAcademy Council, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Stocker, T., et al. 2013. “Technical Summary.” In Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis; Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. Stocker, T., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S., Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., and Midgley, P., 33–115. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Walley, P. 1991. Statistical Reasoning with Imprecise Probabilities. Vol. 42. London: Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yohe, G., and Oppenheimer, M.. 2011. “Evaluation, Characterization, and Communication of Uncertainty by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—an Introductory Essay.” Climatic Change 108 (4): 629–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Climate Change Assessments: Confidence, Probability, and Decision
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Climate Change Assessments: Confidence, Probability, and Decision
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Climate Change Assessments: Confidence, Probability, and Decision
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *