Öz

This paper is an attempt to discuss the dominant problem formulation of climate change from the perspective of Post-Normal Science. The paper critically examines main characteristics of the dominant problem formulation of climate change based on climate change science and then sketches out the paradigm of Post-Normal Science. The paper demonstrates that the dominant problem formulation of climate change is not in line with the main propositions of Post Normal Science.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İklim Değişikliği, İklim Değişikliği Bilim, İklim Politikası, Post Normal Bilim.

CLIMATE CHANGE FROM A POST-NORMAL SCIENCE PERSPECTIVE

Öz

This paper is an attempt to discuss the dominant problem formulation of climate change from the perspective of Post-Normal Science. The paper critically examines main characteristics of the dominant problem formulation of climate change based on climate change science and then sketches out the paradigm of Post-Normal Science. The paper demonstrates that the dominant problem formulation of climate change is not in line with the main propositions of Post Normal Science.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Climate Change, Climate Change Science, Climate Politics, Post-Normal Science

Kaynakça

1. BATE, R., (1997), “The Political Economy of Climate Science”, The Costs of Kyoto: Climate Change Policy and its Implication, Ed: Adler, J. H., Competitive Enterprise Institute, Washington, 99-108.
2. BOEHMER-CHRISTIANSEN, S., (1997), “A Winning Coalition of Advocacy: Climate Research, Bureaucracy and Alternative Fuels", Energy Policy, 25(4), 439-444.
3. BOGEN, J., (2004), “Global Climate Change: Challenges to Scientists”, www.jbogen.com/env/papers/global-climate-change.2004.pdf (16.05.2005).
4. BRUNNER, R. D., (2001), “Science and the Climate Change Regime”, Policy Sciences Review, 34, 1-33.
5. DEMERITT, D., (2001), “The Construction of Global Warming and the Politics of Science”, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 91 (2), 307-337.
6. EDWARDS, P. N., (1999), “Global Climate Science, Uncertainty and Politics: Data-Laden Models, Model-Filtered Data”, Science as Culture 8 (4), 437-472.
7. FUNTOWICZ, S. and Z. RAVETZ (2003), “Post-Normal Science”, http://www.ecoeco.org/publica//encyc-eutries/PstNormSc.doc (16.05.2005).
8. GURULE, J., (2003), “Imagining Climate Change: Vision of the ‘Global’ and the Course of International Climate Policy”, http://www.washington.edu/research/urp/sinst/pubs/2003/Imagining%2 0Climate%20Change_Gurule_03pdf (16.05.2005).

9. HAAG, D., and M. KAUPENJOHANN (2001), “Parameters, Prediction, Post- Normal Science and the Precautionary Principle – a Roadmap for Modeling for Decision-making”, Ecological Modelling, 144, 45-60.
10. HAAS, P. M., (2004), “When does Power Listen to Truth? A Constructivist Approach to the Policy Process”, Journal of European Public Policy, 11 (4), 569-592.
11. HARE, B., (2005), “Communication on Global Warming: The Ball is Now in the US Court”, Global Change, Peace and Security, 17 (1), 87-94.
12. IPCC, (1995), IPCC Second Assessment Climate Change 1995, www.ipcc.ch/pub/sa(E).pdf (16.05.2005).
13. IPCC, (2001), Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report Summary for Policy Makers, www.ipcc.ch/pub/un/syreng/spm.pdf (16.05.2005).
14. IPCC, (2007), Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis Summary for Policy Makers, http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf (06.03.2007).
15. KELLOW, A., (2005), “The Greenhouse and the Garbage Can: Uncertainty and Problem Construction in Climate Policy”, Uncertainty and Climata Change: The Challenge for Policy, Occasional Paper2/2005, Ed: Zillman, J. W., McKibbin, W. J. and Kellow, A., Academy of Social Sciences inn Australia, Canberra, 50-64.
16. KHILYUK, L. and G. V. CHILINGAR (2003), “Are We Confusing Cause and Effect”, Energy Sources, 25, 357-370.
17. LIBERATORE, A. and S. FUNTOWICZ (2003), “‘Democratizing’ Expertise, ‘Exercising’ Democracy: What Does This Mean, and Why Bother?”, Science and Public Policy, 30 (3), 146-150.
18. LOMBORG, B., (2001), The Skeptical Environmentalist Measuring the Real State of the World, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
19. LÖVBRAND, E., (2007), “Pure Science or Policy Involvement? Ambiguous Boundary Work for Swedish Carbon Cycle Science”, Environmental Science and Policy, 10 (1), 39-47
20. LUCARINI, V., (2002), “Towards a Definition of Climate Science” International Journal of Environment and Pollution, 18 (5), 413-422.
21. MORIARTY, P. and D. KENNEDY (2004), “The Web, the Public, and the Global Warming Debate”, Cybernetics and Systems: An International Journal, 35, 723-735.
22. PHILANDER, G., (2001), “Why Global Warming is Controversial”, Science, 294, 2105-2106.
23. RASHIDI, B. and K. HARPER, (eds) (2000), Open Forum Report 4: Climate Change – The Science, Economics, and Politics: What do we Know and What are we Doing about it?, Bard Center for Environmental Policy, Annandale-on-Hudson.
24. RAVETZ, J.R., (1999), “What is Post-Normal Science?” Futures, 31, 647-653.
25. RAVETZ, J.R., (2002), “The Post-Normal Science of Precaution”, http://www.nusap.net/downloads/articles/pnsprecaution.pdf (16.05.2005).
26. ROBINSON, J. and A. SHAW (2004), “Imbued Meaning: Science-Policy Interaction in the IPCC”, Proceedings of the 2002 Berlin Conference on the Human Dimension of Global Environmental Change ‘Knowledge for the Sustainability Transition The Challenge for Social Science’ Global Governance Project, Ed: Biermann, F., Campe, S. and Jacob, K., Amsterdam, 143-153.
27. SALORANTA, T. M., (2001), “Post-Normal Science and the Global Climate Change Issue”, Climatic Change, 50, 395-404.
28. SCHILLER, F. and D. TÄNZLER (2004), “Dissent About Scientific Uncertainties: Implications in Policy Arenas”, Proceedings of the 2002 Berlin Conference on the Human Dimension of Global Environmental Change ‘Knowledge for the Sustainability Transition The Challenge for Social Science’ Global Governance Project, Ed: Biermann, F., Campe, S. and Jacob, K., Amsterdam, 184-192.
29. TACCONI, L., (1998), “Scientific Methodology for Ecological Economics”, Ecological Economics, 27, 91-105.
30. Van De KERKHOF, M. and P. LEROY (2000), “Recent Environmental Research in the Netherlands: Towards Post-Normal Science?” Futures, 32, 899-911.
31. WOLFSON, R. and S.H. SCHNEIDER (2002), “Understanding Climate Science”, Climate Change Policy: A Survey, Ed: Schneider, S. H., Rosencrantz, A. and Niles, J. O., Island Press, Washington DC, 3-51.
32. ZILLMAN, J. W., (2005), “Uncertainty in the Science of Climate Change”, Uncertainty and Climate Change: The Challenge for Policy, Occasional Paper 2/2005, Ed: Zillman, J. W., McKibbin, W. J. and Kellow, A., Academy of Social Sciences in Australia, Canberra, 3-26.