Imperfect Science

Raino Malnes

Global Environmental Politics, 2006, vol. 6, issue 3, 58-71

Abstract: On a crucial issue, the first report of the IPCC speaks with two tongues. It expresses confidence in the greenhouse theory and, at the same time, says that evidence for the theory is indeterminate and inconclusive. This article addresses it-self to two candidates for an explanation. The first hypothesis builds on the straightforward observation that people do not always speak their mind. But there is little reason to believe that contradictions in text can be traced to scientists' concern about boosting the credentials of the greenhouse theory. The second candidate for an explanation, which is the main contribution of the article, says that scientists may be diverted from the concern about truth because they take on tasks that are extraneous to the role of scientist. Thus, members of the IPCC are charged with providing premises for climate policy, and this may have affected both their research and the presentation of its results. (c) 2006 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Date: 2006
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1162/glep.2006.6.3.58 link to full text (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:tpr:glenvp:v:6:y:2006:i:3:p:58-71

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://mitpressjour ... rnal/?issn=1526-3800

Access Statistics for this article

Global Environmental Politics is currently edited by Steven Bernstein, Matthew Hoffmann and Erika Weinthal

More articles in Global Environmental Politics from MIT Press
Bibliographic data for series maintained by The MIT Press ().