Lessons from Post‐Normal Science for Climate Science‐Sceptic Debates

Advanced Review Lessons from post-normal science for climate science-sceptic debates John R. Turnpenny∗

Climate change is a particularly good example of an issue for which the definition of problems, and attempts to resolve them, contain key roles for scientific research, alongside institutions, ideology, and individual beliefs. This can lead to rich empirical questions as to the relative balance of these influences. However, the most visible discussion about the role of scientific knowledge is often a heated and simplistic debate about the details of the science itself. Post-normal science (PNS) is one way to think about the role of science and expertise more generally in addressing problems like climate change. PNS, it is argued, by extending the group of actors feeding expertise of different types into knowledge-making and decision processes, can provide a richer and more in-depth perspective and an extended function of quality control over the process of inquiry. This review introduces the concept of PNS, and some of the responses to it from various quarters. These responses offer valuable insights into the way that scientific expertise is perceived, such as perceptions about why science is used and what science should do, focusing in particular on ‘climate science-sceptic’ debates. By introducing insights from science studies, political science, policy analysis, and human geography alongside PNS, the paper offers potential ways out of such debates, and also ways that PNS may develop in the future. © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

How to cite this article: WIREs Clim Change 2012, 3:397–407. doi: 10.1002/wcc.184

INTRODUCTION and includes the effects of institutions, ideology, and individual perceptions and beliefs. Understanding The word is half his that speaks, half his that hears it what roles expertise plays in addressing different [Montaigne] aspects of climate change is an important empirical question. e hear much about the complexity and But instead of enlightening debate and improved Wintractability of certain problems. Climate understanding, the role of expertise is often under- change is particularly notable in this regard: it is stood simplistically, focusing on the details of the prominent on the political agenda, it creates deeply geophysical science underpinning the climate change divisive reactions, and scientific knowledge plays a problem definition (‘climate science’). The internet is particularly important role in defining and addressing alive with argument,1–5 fueled by controversies about the problems surrounding human influence on climate. the hacking of emails from the Climatic Research Unit Different expertise is marshalled at different times at the University of East Anglia in November 2009 and for different purposes and to inform different ideas allegations of scientific malpractice, the 2006 film ‘An about what the problem is and what ought to be Inconvenient Truth,’ and about the so-called ‘hockey done about it. We also know that while expertise stick’ graph (see Box 1 for a summary of the contro- is important, how societies respond to problems is versy). There are also more formal conferences and based on much more than conventional expertise, meetings dedicated to such subjects, like the Interna- tional Conferences on Climate Change, the sixth of ∗Correspondence to: [email protected] which, in summer 2011, was dedicated to ‘Restor- 6 School of Political, Social and International Studies, University of ing the Scientific Method.’ In response to what may East Anglia, Norwich, UK be termed the ‘climate science-sceptic debate,’ in this

Volume 3, September/October 2012 © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 397 Advanced Review wires.wiley.com/climatechange brief review, I examine how the concept of post- WHAT IS PNS? normal science (PNS) might help us move on from PNS is a concept which has developed and changed these sorts of debates. PNS is one potential way to over many years, and has been described, used, think about expertise when faced by complex prob- and theorized in multiple ways. While PNS’ origins lems, since it explicitly reflects the multiple actors and may be traced all the way back to a response to multiple types of expertise present. The paper serves Thomas Kuhn’s (1962) concept of ‘normal science,’10 as a review of/introduction to PNS—what it is and criticizing the misuse and misdirection of science for where it came from. It also attempts to take PNS for- economic and other powerful interests,11 PNS in its ward by examining the extent to which the ‘climate familiar form was born during the 1980s, along science-sceptic’ debates reflect or contradict the differ- with concern about highly complex and potentially ent elements of PNS. By relating PNS to scholarship risky issues such as climate change and acid rain. In from science studies, political science, policy analysis, cases where facts are uncertain, values in dispute, and human geography, I suggest ways that PNS may stakes high, and decisions urgent, Funtowicz and developinthefuture. Ravetz12 posited that more was needed than simply The paper proceeds as follows. In the next communicating the results of conventional science section, I introduce the concept of PNS, and review to the awaiting and trusting public. To this end, the different research surrounding it, building on my they suggested distinguishing the characteristics of earlier work with Irene Lorenzoni and Mavis Jones.7 complex issues according to two dimensions: systems I focus particularly on the criticisms of PNS, and uncertainties (i.e., the complexities of the system how these reveal particular insights about the way under consideration, including technical, scientific, that scientific expertise is perceived. In the following managerial aspects) and decision stakes (potential section I apply these insights to the ‘climate science- costs and benefits to concerned parties).12 sceptic’ debate to see what can be learned about it, Representing these dimensions as orthogonal before concluding with how research might respond axes, they delineated three ‘modes of inquiry’ for and move the agenda on. addressing issues, depending on the levels of each dimension. Through such a rating system for the BOX 1 tractability of different issues, different paradigms and methods can be called upon in addressing these. When issues are characterized as high on either dimension, WHAT IS THE ‘HOCKEY STICK’? Funtowicz and Ravetz suggested that an appropriate In the late 1990s, Michael Mann and his col- mode of inquiry is a ‘post-normal science’ where ‘tra- leagues published a graph showing a recon- ditional’ experts are complemented by an ‘extended struction of Northern Hemisphere temperatures peer community’ (EPC) of those affected by or with since 1000 AD.8 This was derived from proxy special knowledge of the issue. Through creative sources like ice cores, tree rings and sediments as dialogue,13 the EPC can contribute ‘extended facts’ well as direct instrumental records. Crucially, it (e.g., lay knowledge, understanding, and unpublished showed a sharp rise in temperature since 1900, materials) to provide a richer and more in-depth per- as compared to relatively little change over the spective and an extended function of quality control preceding centuries, leading the shape to be over the process of inquiry.14–17 What has been the dubbed ‘the hockey stick.’ The process of this response to the challenge of PNS? Very broadly, there reconstruction, which includes complex statisti- have been two: one generally supportive, taking the cal techniques and analytical procedures, was concept and applying and developing it further, and criticized by sceptical voices for the assumptions the other critical for a range of different reasons. involved in deriving temperature from proxy sources, and the statistical techniques, among other aspects. These critiques, and the subse- Broadly Supportive Perspectives on PNS quent rebuttals from the original scientists, have The concept of PNS has been used to frame investiga- appeared at the highest level of U.S. politics. The tion of a wide range of different issues: environmen- criticisms of the ‘hockey stick’ graph are analyzed 15,18 19,20 9 tal pollution, genetically modified organisms, in detail by Demeritt ; for our purposes it is suffi- 21 22 cient to note that many of the critics have strong nature conservation, and atmospheric science. political and ideological motivations, and that Climate change has figured prominently in discus- 21–29 27 much of the debate is focused on the minute sion around PNS, and vice versa, Hulme, for details of analytical techniques. example, noting the wide peer community surrounding climate change research. PNS has also been used

398 © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Volume 3, September/October 2012 WIREs Climate Change Climate science-sceptic debates to frame discussions about the process of science scientific method,’’ and asserts that ‘‘abandoning the more generally30–32 and propose practical ways of scientific method led to the ‘Climategate’ scandal.’’ doing science differently, such as the application The expressed desire for ‘reclaiming science,’ or the of the NUSAP concept for analyzing different sorts often-invoked phrase ‘sound science’—not just limited of uncertainties—both qualitative and quantitative to responses to PNS9—forms a strong base for this (numeral, unit, spread, assessment, pedigree)—within type of criticism. Shaw45 notes activists using expert any given problem.33,34 There has recently been research results to reinforce their arguments, but often an increase in research on participatory decision- in a rather uncritical way. This can be used as a making frameworks which explicitly draw on, or at stick to beat climate change research, and reinforce least acknowledge links with, PNS. Building on ear- accusations of science as a deliberate front for political lier sustainability science literature,35,36 developments lobbying. A second type of criticism, similar but from such as community-based participatory research in a completely opposing perspective, is a scepticism health,37 multi-actor approaches to decision-making among some scientists and other conventional experts including decision-support tools,38–40 and typologies as to the value of what is referred to as ‘anecdotal’ of risk perception consistent with PNS28 have pros- evidence more generally.32,46,47 Faced with such points pered. There has also been a strand of commentary of view, Jerry Ravetz himself wonders whether this is on the necessary conditions for improving sustainabil- ‘a sign of PNS’ maturing, or of its encountering its ity science and engaging multiple actors in scientific own insoluble contradictions’ (Ref 44, p. 157). practice, which is likely to require more fundamental But this type of criticism, while potentially change in the scientific process41 rather than simply very disheartening, is very revealing. It provides adding public consultation to existing activity. particularly clear examples of PNS as follows: What does this brief review tell us? PNS has clearly moved through several different ‘incarnations’ a way of opening debate about the nature of science and contains a wide variety of different approaches, and its role in the 21st century world. Framing a researchers, disciplines, and foci of enquiry. But discussion using PNS can often ‘smoke out’ peoples’ across all of these runs the thread says ‘expertise normative positions, which they (we) are often loath to reveal (Ref 7, p. 301) is wider than conventional scientists and conventional science; if we want to address complex issues we must As Petersen et al.48 and Farrell49 have noted, attempt to recognise this and put it into practice.’ PNS is a guide to help understand what is already However, this message is by no means universally happening: whose perspectives are being included, popular. what the place of ‘conventional’ science is, and a useful way to challenge the ‘normal’ expectations of what science should do.43 I argue that the underlying Critical Perspectives on PNS reasons for the two criticisms above include confusion More than with any other issue, climate change has over what science can/should deliver, a desire to keep attracted particular venom to PNS from different science ‘pure,’ and a conviction that the world turns sources. The first main type of criticism comes from purely on scientific evidence. what might be termed the ‘climate sceptic’ perspective, There is a third broad type of criticism of PNS, and runs along the lines that embracing PNS is an this time mainly from social scientists, along sev- admission that climate science is ‘wrong,’ and that the eral different lines. These include criticism of the arguments on climate change are based not around axes delineating PNS (decision stakes and systems ‘sound science’ but on political agenda. Picking up on uncertainties—are these the right axes, are they really Jerry Ravetz’ normative critiques of science spanning independent, are they measurable?),50 difficulty in nearly 40 years11,42,43 and especially a more recent practically applying the concept of PNS,51,52 ques- turn toward PNS as explicitly attempting to make tions about who participates in an EPC and how,50,53 a social and environmental difference, critics have and particularly the charge of neglecting the wider accused PNS of being a ‘cheap and lying term for literature on similar subjects,54 especially an under- a political diktat,’ serving socialist and Marxist aims standing of the politics of expertise and power.53,55 (see blog posts extensively quoted by Ravetz44). The Kastenhofer56 argues that a focus on ‘getting the Sixth International Climate Change Conference, on science right’ (however we define ‘right,’ includ- Restoring the Scientific Method,6 ‘‘acknowledges the ing opening science up to other perspectives) misses fact that claims of scientific certainty and predictions wider governance issues. Goeminne57 reminds us that of climate catastrophes are based on ‘post-normal science has always been political and hence never science,’ which substitutes claims of consensus for the ‘normal,’ while warning of the dangers of PNS, or

Volume 3, September/October 2012 © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 399 Advanced Review wires.wiley.com/climatechange any other type of sustainability science, failing to by oil companies, and/or being mischievous, ignorant, adequately recognize the political aspects of how or self-aggrandizing. Harsh words, and some of them problems are defined in the first place. may even be true. But in among claim and counter- While this type of criticism has bite, it does not claim, we see a clear illustration of how ‘science’ mean that PNS has nothing to offer. A major challenge can be used for all sorts of different purposes. involves changing mental models of what science is This revelation is not new. But to see it so clearly and how it relates to politics in its widest sense (‘who might help us accept that science, far from being a gets what, when, and how’). Wesselink and Hoppe,55 monolithic ‘truth tablet,’ fulfils many different roles for example, contribute to this effort by linking PNS at different times. It is useful to refer to the classic to the policy analysis literature and how the place work of Carol Weiss,58 who set out several different of science varies when addressing different types of models of research utilization, including problem problems. Indeed PNS can help us move forward in solving, political ammunition, delaying tactics, and better understanding the place of scientific expertise ‘enlightenment.’ In this latter model, rather than within wider society: specifically informing direct policy questions, research diffuses into the public realm and provides a landscape PNS can act as a bridge between academic disciplines. of ideas which inform general debate. While this type Using PNS is a recognition (albeit not necessarily of use is commonly observed in practice, there is an explicitly) that science is shaped by political aspects in important issue of quality: the widest sense of the word. While this is old news to social scientists, it is an important step forward for When research diffuses to the policy sphere through many natural scientists.(Ref 7, p. 301) indirect and unguided channels, it dispenses invalid In the rest of this paper I do not dwell on the as well as valid generalizations...there are no procedures for screening out the shoddy and shortcomings and potential improvements to PNS, obsolete...the indirect diffusion process is vulnerable rather on what the experiences with PNS can teach us to oversimplification and distortion, and it may about climate change and how we might respond. I come to resemble ‘endarkenment’ as much as focus on two inter-related aspects: first, PNS as a way enlightenment(Ref 58, p. 430) of better understanding the climate science-sceptic debate around climate change—the ‘smoking out’ of Much of the climate science-sceptic debate people’s expectations and motivations surrounding appears to have forgotten, or else wishes away as climate science; and second, how we might go beyond undesirable, these insights. Equally, the concept of negative and unproductive debate by getting a more ‘endarkenment’—deliberate (mis)use of research—is rounded perspective (through the prompting of PNS) excluded from the perspective of PNS. Yet endarken- about the place of expertise in public policy. ment persists, and we should not be surprised that it does so; attempts to take a proactive PNS approach must be aware of it. HOW CAN THIS HELP DEBATES ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE? Our Fantasies About Science Through the criticisms of PNS, we see that debates ostensibly about science are often at heart about some- We face a wider challenge. There is often an expec- thing else: politics, values, or normative judgments tation of so-called ‘sound science’ as fact-gathering, about the way society should work. We now turn to which is then communicated to powerful actors who two specific aspects relevant to this: (1) that there are then make decisions based upon the data. In spite multiple reasons why science is used to support argu- of so much social science research (Refs 59–67 ments and (2) embedded within these are core ideas among many others) which challenges this simplis- about what science is and what it should do. tic model and shows how science is just one part of a complex tapestry of interactions, this kind of linear- rational expectation of science’s role is very persistent. Reasons for Using Science Whether this is a genuinely held belief about what When considering the science of climate change, there science is, or a cynical pretence to hide other moti- is plenty of mud slung around. Climate scientists vations for invoking ‘a sound scientific approach,’ is are often accused of being in a tight-knit closed an important empirical question. But there is often a community, of thinking they are unaccountable to ‘pious reverence’ for science both among sceptics and the ‘real world’ or of being part of a communist mainstream scientists,9 and the language of ‘delivering conspiracy. Sceptics are variously regarded as funded outcomes,’ as if research outputs were ready-made

400 © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Volume 3, September/October 2012 WIREs Climate Change Climate science-sceptic debates products waiting to be sold, reinforces the image of an individual level a fear of appearing irrational can white-coated analysts who know everything but are lead people to hide core values behind ‘logic.’ Overall just not capable of communicating it. The issue is then, if the interweaving of the political and the sci- more fundamental: the image is a convenient fiction. entific is acknowledged, some fear it might undermine The process of investigation is a social activity, with credibility for all concerned, including politicians: its own institutions, practices, and norms, involving persuasion and argument. This does not mean that public exposure of scientific uncertainty is not always scientific results are suspect, but that we need a more the politically progressive and reflexive liberation grown-up way of seeing science: of politics, law and the public sphere from their patronization by technocracy that [Ulrich] Beck many journalists...have judged the [hacked UEA sometimes imagines (Ref 9, p. 460) emails] on a kind of Boy Scout image of science...they appear to be surprised that scientific facts are made Second comes the issue of how scientific work is and not just discovered (Ref 68, p. 304) communicated. Climate scientists are frequently criticized for over-confident predictions, but given that How does PNS fit with this? It asks us to open up most peoples’ information is obtained through sec- and extend the process of doing science. The ‘blogo- ondary sources, there is clearly more going on. Is sphere’ is one increasingly familiar forum for discus- there a genuine view among scientists that emphasiz- sion on both climate change, and on PNS, by both reg- ing uncertainty will simply lead to misunderstanding? ular climate scientists and lay people.1–5,69,70 Knowl- What are the effects of interpretation by interme- edge production in the blogosphere is bottom–up and diaries such as the media which deliberately ignore loosely controlled (if at all), rather than being a care- caveats of research? Most scientists will tell of being ful product of established institutions. But we must constantly pressured to ‘give the bottom line, put num- not expect blogging to be the philosopher’s stone it is bers on it, and don’t tell us what you don’t know—tell sometimes claimed to be. ‘Opening up’ the process of us what you do know.’ Since ‘caveated statements science will perhaps yield rather more uncomfortable show up poorly against loudly proclaimed confident results than first expected. We still see some awkward statements’,76 it is hardly surprising that what most recurring questions. First, why is this ‘Boy Scout sci- people see may be far from the original intention of ence’ image so persistent? In a world of erosion in the those who generated the science. social status of, and trust in, scientists,71,72 consistent But our more fundamental problem is that we with low trust in other societal pillars like politicians, quest to reduce uncertainty, while at the same time civil servants, and business and trades union leaders,73 it suits us to emphasize it when we want to. Any we find that scientists are often simply not believed. opening up of the process of science will strip away Very few people are party to the actual science of this front. So how can this be done in a way that climate change and rely on intermediaries (mainly builds trust rather than causing more controversy? newspapers, television, and the internet) to interpret Again, PNS can help us. While PNS could be used as expertise, and so the issue of trust is critical—trust in a stick to beat scientists into being more responsive the bodies of expertise, the experts themselves, and to the wider world’s needs, this approach77—apart the institutions of advice giving—for legitimacy.74,75 from missing the political aspects of research use and But how is trustworthiness evaluated? It is often encouraging blame of scientists—ignores the already based on a perception of how well the Boy Scout model large pressures on scientists to publish, to have ‘real- is adhered to. People often prefer to deceive themselves world impact,’ to do ‘useful work,’ and be policy- about what science can do when faced with complex relevant to justify public investment.72 The multiple problems: ‘important sectors of the public do not for- conflicting responsibilities lead quickly to stress and give any dilution of scientific rigor’ (Ref 29, p. 472), breakdown: not, I believe, in the spirit of PNS. and scientists are then in an impossible situation. PNS can rather be used in a more kindly way, There are benefits to maintaining the fiction: ‘‘using both to ‘hear’ the pressures on scientists and to move ‘sound science’...creates an incentive for participants debate beyond an obsession with the details of the to demonstrate that science supports their positions’’ data to an opening and questioning of the nature of (Ref 72, p. 39) (Carol Weiss’ ‘political model’ of science itself. Given that belief about climate science, research use). Invoking ‘sound science’ can also be and trust in those who communicate it, is strongly an attempt to minimize controversy and so attempt to influenced by environmental and political values,78,79 make decisions happen and keep moving, or it can be eliciting underlying values must surely be a priority. a symbolic aspiration, or a genuine belief in science’s Rather than simply calling for smart social scientists objectivity, or a status reinforcement for scientists. On to educate the ignorant masses and the naïve natural

Volume 3, September/October 2012 © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 401 Advanced Review wires.wiley.com/climatechange scientists (in a linear-rational way!), we need to better 1990s, however, a drive toward more ‘evidence- understand what is going on in these debates. We based’ approaches to policy-making and practice has need to explore what is driving the protagonists, their emerged strongly.83,87,88 Analyses have shown that in views about what science is and how it is carried out, spite of the rhetoric, politics and ideology are still what they hope to achieve, and how they would like heavily part of the practice of such approaches.89–91 to see science used. We can guess, or accuse, answers In parallel with these changes has been develop- to these, but we really need more detailed research ment of more post-positivist approaches to studying to reveal motivations in different contexts. This could the science–policy relationship,82,92 emphasizing the help defuse a debate that has become ritualistic and role of values, argument, and persuasion in decision- stale. making, and ways to better understand these. In this context, PNS can be seen as a way to put science–pol- Climbing Out of the ‘Hockey Stick’ Hole icy reflexivity into practice, a kind of forensic analysis We have seen how different motivations for doing of open debate around quality (Ref 82, p. 192). While science, and expectations of science, are at work, and somewhat different to the original concept of EPC, while by no means new this is a useful grounding for one might see participation in the blogosphere as one challenging current debates. What basis do we need to ‘tool’ for carrying out more PNS. Indeed, through make further progress? First, it is important to recog- blog debates, one could argue that the concept of PNS nize the complex and subtle ways expertise influences is itself being developed through a PNS-type process! policy, and how policy and politics influence expertise It is ironic that those sceptical of PNS are arguably creation and use.80 There are many different perspec- actually engaged in it via their blog participation. But tives on this, from political science, geography, and the overall point is that the relationship between sci- science studies, but all make it clear that science is a ence and policy is continuously changing, and that political and social as well as an analytical process,74 should alert us to the need for research approaches of and ordering the boundaries of what counts as valid different styles, with different expectations at different knowledge—who does this, how, and why—is an times, to best work within those changing contexts. important activity in securing legitimacy.81 In sum- PNS has, of course, taken different forms at differ- mary, and paraphrasing Hugh Heclo, Susan Owens ent times, and this fluidity is part of its enduring states that ‘making of public policy involves both salience. powering and puzzling...through the involvement of Third, how does this more conceptual discus- a range of social actors and institutions’ (Ref 80, sion relate to how expertise on climate change has p. 395). These actors influence the way that prob- changed? Ann Campbell Keller’s 2009 study72 on lems are structured, and hence the ways they are the politics of climate change expertise in the United addressed, and actors’ participation is also influenced States showed that, broadly, science takes different by problem structure.62,82 It is important to apply roles and has different types of influence at different these insights when suggesting ways of ‘doing sci- parts of the policy process—for example, agenda- ence differently.’ This applies equally to PNS, which setting, law-making, and implementation. In the case has often been criticized for missing such aspects: of climate change, in the 1980s, climate scientists ‘‘political decision-making is less ‘rational’ than PNS framed the problem of global-scale, long-term climate allows for with outcomes rarely dictated by ‘facts’’’ change and, simultaneously, set the policy agenda; (Ref 83, p. 203). this agenda was taken up and institutionalized in Second, the ways that expertise is used, and the 1990s (see also Refs 93 and 94). However, this attitudes to it, depend on the context (policy field, very success, leading to more formalized participa- type and visibility of problems, and structures within tion of scientists and greater salience of the issue, which actors act) and are empirical questions,64,84 led to several consequences which might be seen in but also appear to change at the highest level over the climate science-sceptic debate. Success naturally time. From the 1950s to roughly the end of the made science and scientists a particular site of politi- 1970s, scientists’ authority was relatively high, and cal conflict, a state familiar to any agenda-setter. More use of, and trust in, analytical methods in policy- attention was then paid to science and the scientists making was widespread.82,85,86 But this gave way themselves: ‘As the policy process unfolds, scientists to emerging doubts over the rationalist/positivist are placed under increasing scrutiny with respect to approach, coupled with experiences showing the the credibility of the advice they offer, even as sci- limitations of analytical tools, and the politically entific uncertainties are reduced’ (Ref 72, p. 170). and financially motivated cutting of government Also, as policy develops, formal rules constrain the policy analysis units in the early 1980s. Since the boundaries of acceptable influence, and make it harder

402 © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Volume 3, September/October 2012 WIREs Climate Change Climate science-sceptic debates to cross them. If actors attempt to persist in cross- work. Observing the criticism of PNS by the protago- ing boundaries at this stage, they are much more nists in this debate has revealed different expectations likely to have their legitimacy challenged. In addi- and motivations surrounding the construction and tion, the nature of the expertise required has changed. use of climate science, science as a proxy for politi- Newell93 (p. 44) noted that IPCC Working Group cal conflict, and different perceptions of what science I, which assesses the physical scientific aspects of is or can or should do. It has also illuminated the climate change, derives its power by making a prob- link between PNS and wider literature on the role of lem comprehensible to non-specialists, but its very expertise within public policy-making. doing so is likely to reduce its privileged position. What might be our responses to these challenges? This has indeed happened since 2000, as we have It is still easy to fall into the trap of ‘get the science seen discussion move beyond the climate itself and right and we will get better outcomes.’ Simply present- more into responses: from geophysical science toward ing scientific results in a louder voice, or in brighter engineering, economics, psychology, political science, colours,98 will have little effect on the debate; it may science studies, and increasingly the humanities.95,96 well intensify it. There are ways of changing practices However, positivist natural sciences still dominate of science, recognizing the different roles scientists research discussions around climate change and the can play,99 and improving the process of carrying out IPCC process, in spite of calls to include humanities science. But while these entail a loss of freedom for and other disciplines’ perspectives.96,97 For PNS, the scientists and a whole new set of questions relating question of focus becomes critical—should attempts to the problem of extension,100 and to how to deal be made to open up the processes of the geophysical with conflicting priorities, there appears to be little sciences or the humanities, for example? Friedrichs29 alternative if trust is to be maintained. Similarly, there argues that climate science has already extended its is a danger that attempts to change the practice of peer community considerably, mainly through the science will fall into the same trap. While PNS is a IPCC process, while energy science, for example, useful way of reminding us that there is much more has not. to the world than conventional science, by focusing This leads us to the fourth point: what do we on changing knowledge production, ‘‘PNS reproduces focus on now? One might argue that the ‘hockey stick’ the logic which assumes that superior outcomes rest hole is a relic, a 1990s debate fueled by greater recent upon the quality of the ‘facts’ informing them’’ (Ref visibility of the issue. Given where climate change finds 83, p. 202) and we must be wary of this. We have itself on the political agenda, it is not a debate that can seen that it is even more important to understand how be illuminated by greater communication/discussion expertise is used in practice, how it fits with the many about the science of climate. In fact, more research can other competing influences on public policy-making sometimes confuse rather than illuminate decision- like institutions, ideology, public and economic pres- making. In consequence, rather than calls to open up sures, and the influence on the way science is then the process of climate science, I again argue that it construed. Science—regardless of the way it is prac- is much better to explicitly open up underlying value ticed—must necessarily act as only one of many questions, and on the politics of ‘who gets what, voices. when and how.’ This may include questions on a But opening up the process of science and chal- sub-global scale, such as where to put wind turbines lenging the place of science within policy-making is or nuclear waste. Perhaps these imply a return to a difficult: there are many key arguments and cher- much earlier incarnation of PNS applied in specific ished beliefs that are built on the Boy Scout model contexts, rather than on the subject of climate change of science as fact gathering. We cannot build a solid as a whole. response to climate change (or indeed any complex challenge) on such a basis, or we will see the climate science-sceptic debate, and others like it, continuing in CONCLUSION perpetuity. Similarly, simply trying to educate the pro- PNS has many shades, and is one of those concepts tagonists about the complexity of science is unlikely that variously manages to galvanize, inspire, provoke, to make much progress; it leads to the same linear- annoy, and repel. In this paper, I have introduced post- rational trap. I argue instead for encouraging critical normal science as a way to respond to complex issues thinking about science, which can be helped by try- such as climate change. I have used a review of PNS’ ingtodrawthepoisonfrom,andwiden,theclimate different functions and ‘appearances’ to shed light on science-sceptic debate. One only has to spend a few a particularly visible and long-lasting confrontation moments absorbing the passion and vitriol on climate- between climate science and those sceptical of such change-related blogs to dispel any doubt that ‘facts’

Volume 3, September/October 2012 © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 403 Advanced Review wires.wiley.com/climatechange and ‘values’ are locked together, in spite of periodic ﬁght endarkenment with empathy—something along assertions by all concerned that they are separate. the lines of Jerry Ravetz’ negotiation in good faith (Ref But actually debating the underlying values 42, p. 278)—but only by being aware that not every- held,83 asking why trust in scientists is low, and what one is on the same wavelength or has the same desires. debate is actually trying to achieve will help make the The rewards could be great, leading toward some process more solid. Responding to criticisms with ‘so restoration of trust. Without trust in institutions, we you don’t think scientists can be trusted?’ will hope- are left with millions of lone voices clamouring thinly fully yield a different outcome to the response ‘but to be heard. Surely no problem larger than the scale just look at this graph!’. I suggest that it is possible to of the individual can be solved this way.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT This research was carried out while the author was based in the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and the Science, Society and Sustainability (3S) group in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia.

REFERENCES 1. Watts Up With That? Available at: ed. Ecological Economics: The Science and Manage- http://wattsupwiththat.com/. (Accessed January 27, ment of Sustainability. New York: Columbia Univer- 2012). sity Press; 1991, 137–152. 2. The No Carbon Tax climate sceptics blog. Avail- 13. Rosa EA. Metatheoretical foundations for post- able at: http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/. normal risk. J Risk Res 1998, 1:15–44. (Accessed January 27, 2012). 14. Ravetz JR. What is post-normal science? Futures 1999, 3. Climate Skeptic. Available at: http://www.climate- 31:647–653. skeptic.com/. (Accessed January 27, 2012). 15. Healy S. Extended peer communities and the ascen- 4. Skeptical Science. For rebuttals, see dance of postnormal politics. Futures 1999, 31: http://www.skepticalscience.com/. (Accessed January 655–669. 27, 2012). 16. Luks F. Post-normal science and the rhetoric of 5. Grist. Available at: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/. inquiry: deconstructing normal science? Futures 1999, (Accessed January 27, 2012). 31:705–719. 6. International Conference on Climate Change. Avail- 17. O’Connor M. Dialogue and debate in a post-normal able at: http://climateconference.heartland.org/past- practice of science: a reflexion. Futures 1999, conferences/iccc-6/. (Accessed January 27, 2012). 31:671–687. 7. Turnpenny JR, Jones M, Lorenzoni I. Editorial: where 18. de Marchi B, Ravetz JR. Risk management and gover- now for post-normal science? A critical review of its nance: a post-normal science approach Futures 1999, development, definitions and uses. Sci Technol Hum 31:743–757. Values 2011, 36:287–306. 19. Giampietro M. Sustainability, the new challenge of 8. Mann ME, Bradley RS, Hughes, MK. Northern hemi- governance, and postnormal science. Polit Life Sci sphere temperatures during the past millennium: infer- 1999, 18:218–221. ences, uncertainties, and limitations. Geophys Res Lett 1999, 26:759–762. 20. Waltner-Toews D, Wall E. Emergent perplexity: in search of post-normal questions for community 9. Demeritt D. Science studies, climate change and the and agroecosystem health. Soc Sci Med 1997, prospects for constructivist critique, Econ Soc 2006, 45:1741–1749. 35:453–479. 21. Francis RA, Goodman MK. Post-normal science and 10. Kuhn T. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. the art of nature conservation. J Nat Conserv 2010, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1962. 18:89–105. 11. Ravetz JR. Scientific Knowledge and Its Social Prob- 22. Pereira AG, Raes F, Pedrosa TD, Rosa P, Brodersen S, lems. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1971. Jorgensen MS, Ferreira F, Querol X, Rea J. Atmo- 12. Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR. A new scientific methodol- spheric composition change research: time to go ogy for global environmental issues. In: Costanza R, post-normal? Atmos Environ 2009, 43:5423–5432.

23. Bray D, von Storch H. Climate science: an empirical 39. Frame B, Brown J. Developing post-normal technolo- example of postnormal science. Bull Am Meteorol Soc gies for sustainability. Ecol Econ 2008, 65:225–241. 1999, 80:439–455. 40. Frame B, O’Connor M. Integrating valuation and 24. Mentzel M. ‘Climate’ for social assessment: experts, deliberation: the purposes of sustainability assessment. uncertainty and policy development. Innovation 1999, Environ Sci Policy 2011, 14:1–10. 12:221–234. 41. Spangenberg JH. Sustainability science: a review, an 25. Saloranta TM. Post-normal science and the global cli- analysis and some empirical lessons. Environ Conserv mate change issue. Clim Change 2001, 50:395–404. 2011, 38:275–287. 26. Etkin D, Ho E. Climate change: perceptions and dis- 42. Ravetz JR. Post-normal science and the complexity courses of risk. J Risk Res 2007, 10:623–641. of transitions towards sustainability. Ecol Complex 27. Hulme M. Claiming and adjudicating on Mt Kiliman- 2006, 3:275–284. jaro’s shrinking glaciers: Guy Callendar, Al Gore 43. Ravetz JR. Latest thoughts on post-normal science. and extended peer communities. Sci Cult 2010, In: Bogner A, Kastenhofer K, Torgersen H, eds. Inter- 19:303–326. und Transdisziplinaritat¨ im Wandel? Neue Perspek- 28. Upham P, Riesch H, Tomei J, Thornley P. The sustain- tiven auf problemorientierte Forschung und Politik- ability of forestry biomass supply for EU bioenergy: beratung. Germany: Nomos, Baden Baden; 2010, a post-normal approach to environmental risk and 231–246. uncertainty. Environ Sci Policy 2011, 14:510–518. 44. Ravetz JR. ‘Climategate’ and the maturing of post- 29. Friedrichs J. Peak energy and climate change: the normal science. Futures 2011, 43:149–157. double bind of post-normal science. Futures 2011, 45. Shaw C. The dangerous limits of dangerous limits: cli- 43:469–477. mate change and the precautionary principle. Sociol 30. Waltner-Toews D, Bunch M, Neudoerffer C, Parkes Rev 2009, 57(suppl 2):103–123. M, Venema H. Championing ecosystem sustainabil- 46. Doern GB, Reed TJ. Canada’s changing science-based ity and health: profile and tribute to the life and policy and regulatory regime: issues and framework of James Kay (1954–2004). EcoHealth 2004, work. In: Doern GB, Reed TJ, eds. Risky Business: 1:334–339. Canada’s Changing Science-Based Policy and Regu- 31. Lorenzoni I, Jones M, Turnpenny JR. Climate change, latory Regime. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; human genetics and post-normality in the UK. Futures 2000, 3–30. 2007, 39:65–82. 47. Petts J, Brooks C. Expert conceptualisations of the role 32. Turnpenny J, Lorenzoni I, Jones M. Noisy and defi- of lay knowledge in environmental decision making: nitely not normal: responding to wicked issues in the challenges for deliberative democracy. Environ Plan A environment, energy and health. Environ Sci Policy 2006, 38:1045–1059. 2009, 12:347–358. 48. Petersen AC, Cath A, Hage M, Kunseler E, van der 33. Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR. Uncertainty and Quality in Sluijs JP. Post-normal science in practice at the Nether- Science for Policy. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer lands Environmental Assessment Agency. Sci Technol Academic Publishers; 1990. Hum Values 2011, 36:362–388. 34. van der Sluijs JP, Craye M, Funtowicz SO, Kloprogge 49. Farrell KN. Snow White and the wicked problems of P, Ravetz JR, Risbey J. Combining quantitative and the west: a look at the lines between empirical descrip- qualitative measures of uncertainty in model-based tion and normative prescription. Sci Technol Hum environmental assessment: the NUSAP system. Risk Values 2011, 36:334–361. Anal 2005, 25:481–492. 50. Yearley S. Making systematic sense of public dis- 35. Kasemir B, Jager¨ J, Jaeger CC, Gardner MT. Public contents with expert knowledge: two analytical Participation in Sustainability Science. Cambridge: approaches and a case study. Public Underst Sci 2000, Cambridge University Press; 2003. 9:105–122. 36. Backstrand K. Civic science for sustainability: refram- 51. Tacconi L. Scientific methodology for ecological eco- ing the role of experts, policy-makers and citizens in nomics. Ecol Econ 1998, 27:91–105. environmental governance Glob Environ Polit 2003, 52. Logar N. Scholarly science policy models and real pol- 3:24–41. icy, RSD for SciSIP in US mission agencies. Policy Sci 37. Bidwell D. Is community-based participatory research 2011, 44:249–266. postnormal science? Sci Technol Hum Values 2009, 53. Lidskog R. Scientised citizens and democratised sci- 34:741–761. ence: re-assessing the expert-lay divide. J Risk Res 38. Frame B. ‘Wicked’, ‘messy’ and ‘clumsy’: long-term 2008, 11:69–86. frameworks for sustainability. Environ Plan C 2008, 54. Weingart P. From ‘‘Finalization’’ to ‘‘Mode 2’’: old 26:1113–1128. wine in new bottles? Soc Sci Inf 1997, 36:591–613.

55. Wesselink A, Hoppe R. If post-normal science is the 74. Barker A, Peters BG. Introduction: science policy and solution, what is the problem? The politics of activist government. In: Barker A, Peters BG, eds. The Politics environmental science. Sci Technol Hum Values 2011, of Expert Advice. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University 36:389–412. Press; 1993, 1–16. 56. Kastenhofer K. Risk assessment of emerging technolo- 75. Jasanoff S. Judgment under siege: the three-body gies and post-normal science. Sci Technol Hum Values problem of expert legitimacy. In: Maasen S, Wein- 2011, 36:307–333. gart P, eds. Democratization of Expertise? Exploring 57. Goeminne G. Has science ever been normal? On the Novel Forms of Scientific Advice in Political Decision- need and impossibility of a sustainability science. Making. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer; 2005, Futures 2011, 43:627–636. 209–223. 58. Weiss CH. The many meanings of research utilization. 76. Trenberth K. Communicating Climate Science and Public Adm Rev 1979, 39:426–431. Thoughts on Climategate AMS, 23–27 January 2011. Seattle Joint Presidential Session on Communicating 59. Heclo H. Modern Social Politics in Britain and Swe- Climate Change. den: From Relief to Income Maintenance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 1974. 77. Editorial ‘Value Judgements’. Nature 2011, 60. Lindblom CE. Still muddling, not yet through. Public 473:123–124. Adm Rev 1979, 39:517–526. 78. Hulme M. Why We Disagree About Climate Change. 61. Sabatier P. An advocacy coalition framework of policy Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2009. change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. 79. Whitmarsh L. Scepticism and uncertainty about cli- Policy Sci 1988, 21:129–168. mate change: dimensions, determinants and change 62. Majone G. Evidence, Argument and Persuasion in the over time. Glob Environ Change 2011, 21:690–700. Policy Process. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 80. Owens S. Learning across levels of governance: expert 1989. advice and the adoption of carbon dioxide emissions 63. Jenkins-Smith H. Democratic Politics and Policy Anal- reduction targets in the UK. Glob Environ Change ysis. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole; 1990. 2010, 20:394–401. 64. Radaelli CM. The role of knowledge in the policy 81. Shackley S, Wynne B. Representing uncertainty in process. J Eur Public Policy 1995, 2:159–183. global climate change science and policy: boundary- ordering devices and authority. Sci Technol Hum 65. Kingdon JW. Agendas, Alternatives and Public Poli- Values 1996, 21:275–302. cies. Updated 2nd ed. New York: Longman, 2010. 66. Haas PM. When does power listen to truth? A con- 82. Hoppe R. The Governance of Problems: Puzzling, structivist approach to the policy process. J Eur Public Powering and Participation. Bristol: Policy Press; Policy 2004, 11:569–592. 2011. 67. Owens S, Rayner T, Bina O. New agendas for 83. Healy S. Post-normal science in postnormal times. appraisal: reflections on theory, practice, and research. Futures 2011, 43:202–208. Environ Plan A 2004, 36:1943–1959. 84. Radaelli CM. The public policy of the European 68. Ryghaug M, Skjølsvold TM. The global warming of Union: whither politics of expertise? J Eur Public Pol- climate science: Climategate and the construction of icy 1999, 6:757–774. scientific facts. Int Stud Philos Sci 2010, 24:287–307. 85. Rossi PH, Lipsey MW, Freeman HE. Evaluation—A 69. Climate Etc. Available at: http://judithcurry.com/. Systematic Approach. 7th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: (Accessed May 7, 2012). Sage Publications; 2004. 70. Die Klimazwiebel: Available at: http://klimazwiebel.bl 86. Wollmann H. Policy evaluation and evaluation ogspot.it/. (Accessed May 7, 2012). research. In: Fischer F, Miller GJ, Sidney MS, eds. Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Poli- 71. Topf R. Conclusion: science, public policy and the tics and Methods. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2007, authoritativeness of the governmental process. In: 393–402. Barker A, Peters BG, eds. The Politics of Expert Advice. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press; 1993, 87. Sanderson I. Complexity, ‘practical rationality’ and 103–117. evidence-based policy making. Policy Polit 2006, 72. Keller AC. Science in Environmental Policy: The Poli- 34:115–132. tics of Objective Advice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 88. Nutley SM, Walter I, Davies HTO. Using Evidence: 2009. How Research Can Inform Public Services. Bristol: 73. YouGov/Channel 4 News Survey of 32 268 British Policy Press; 2007. adults, 29 May–4 June 2009. Available at: http://www. 89. Sanderson I. Intelligent policy making for a complex yougov.co.uk/archives/pdf/Megapoll_EuroElections. world: pragmatism, evidence and learning. Polit Stud pdf. (Accessed January 30, 2012). 2009, 57:699–719.

90. Newman J. Boundary troubles: working the academic- 96. Hulme M. Meet the humanities. Nat Clim Chang policy interface. Policy Polit 2011, 39:473–484. 2011, 1:177–179. 91. Sullivan H. ‘Truth’ junkies: using evaluation in UK 97. Hulme M. Geographical work at the boundaries of cli- public policy. Policy Polit 2011, 39:499–512. mate change. Trans Inst Br Geogr 2008, NS33:5–11. 92. Fischer F. Evaluating Public Policy. Stamford, CT: 98. Mahony M, Hulme M. The colour of risk: an explo- Wadsworth; 1995. ration of the IPCC’s ‘burning embers’ diagram. Spon- 93. Newell P. Climate for Change: Non-State Actors and taneous Generations: J Hist Philos Sci. In press. the Global Politics of the Greenhouse. Cambridge: 99. Pielke R. The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Sci- Cambridge University Press; 2000. ence in Policy and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge 94. Miller CA. Climate science and the making of a global University Press; 2007. political order. In: Jasanoff S, ed. States of Knowledge: 100. Collins H, Evans R. The third wave of science studies - The Co-Production of Science and Social Order. New studies of expertise and experience. Soc Stud Sci 2002, York: Routledge; 2004, 46–66. 32:235–296. 95. O’Neill SJ, Hulme M, Turnpenny J, Screen M. Disci- plines, geography and gender in the framing of climate change. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 2010, 91:997–1002.