The paper "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change " is a great example of micro and macroeconomic coursework. The intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) is a body formed with a mandate to assess climate change. The body was formed in 1988 by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) (IPCC, 2015). The aim of the body has been to provide scientific knowledge on climate change- and its impacts on the environment and social-economic (Nerlich, Koteyko & Brown, 2010). The UN general assembly endorsed the formation of IPCC in 1988.
IPCC operates at the auspices of the UN (Lawson, 2008). Over the years, IPCC has been assessing the recent scientific data and information produced worldwide. This has helped a lot in understanding climate change. IPCC does not conduct research or monitor the climate but depends on the published data (IPCC, 2015). The work of IPCC depends on thousands of scientists who volunteer their work. The main work of IPCC involves review which helps them to have a range of views from the experts (Guston, 2001). This report analyses the contribution of IPCC on the climate change debate.
It critically assesses IPCC values and interests, advocacy position, and use of science. Lastly, the support for IPCC views is addressed. Background The work of IPCC is coordinated by the IPCC with liaisons with other governments. The location of IPCC headquarters is in Geneva and administered according to UNEP, UN, WMO rules, and procedures. Being an intergovernmental body, all member countries of the UN and WMO are open to join. IPCC has 195 member countries. Government participation is in the review process and sessions.
This is where the main decisions are made on the IPCC work program. Reports are approved and accepted in the same process. The plenary sessions also help in electing the Bureau member and the chair (IPCC, 2015). The scientific and intergovernmental nature of IPCC has helped IPCC to come up with balanced decisions based on science. Through the endorsement of the reports, the governments are able to show their authenticity of scientific content. IPCC tasks are policy-relevant and still policy-neutral (Hulme, 2009b).
Bagla, P. 2010. “Climate science leader Rajendra Pachauri confronts his critics”, Science Vol.327, 510-511
Beck, S. 2010, “One size fits all?” Can the IPCC serve as blueprint for scientific advice on adaptation to climate change? Regional Environmental Change
Betz, G. 2009, “Under-determination, model-ensembles and surprises: on the epistemology of scenario analysis in climatology,” Journal of the General Philosophy of Science, Vol.,40, no.1, p.3-21
Bjurström, A. & Polk, M. 2010, Physical and economic bias in climate change research: a scientometric study of IPCC Third Assessment Report Climatic Change
Budescu, D.V., Broomell, S. & Por, H-H. 2009, “Improving communication of uncertainty in reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,” Psychological Science, Vol. 20, no.3, p.299-308.
Carolan, M. S. 2008, “The bright-and blind-spots of science: why objective knowledge is not enough to resolve environmental controversies,” Critical Sociology Vol.34, no.5, p.725- 740.
Carter, Robert M. 2010, Climate: The Counter-Consensus. London: Stacey International.
Dahan-Dalmedico, A. 2008, “Climate expertise: between scientific credibility and geopolitical imperatives,” Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Vol. 33, no.1, p.71-81
Demeritt, D. 2001, “The construction of global warming and the politics of science”, Annals Association American Geographers, Vol.91, no.2, p.307-337
Franz, W. E. 1997, The development of an international agenda for climate change: connecting science to policy Interim Report IR-97-034, IIASA, Laxenburg, 35pp.
Grundmann, R. 2007, “Climate change and knowledge politics,” Environmental Politics, Vol.16, no.3, p.414-432
Guston, D. 2001, “Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: An Introduction Science,” Technology & Human Values, Vol.26, no.1, p.399-408.
Henderson, D.2007 “Governments and Climate Change Issues: The Case for Rethinking”. World Economics, Vol. 8 No 2, April-June 2007, pp 204-5.
Hulme, M. 2009b, Mediating the messages about climate change: reporting the IPCC Fourth Assessment in the UK print media pp.117-128 in, Climate change and the media(eds.) Boyce,T. and Lewis, J., Peter Lang, New York, 261pp
Inter Academy Council (IAC) 2010 “Climate Change Assessments: Review of the Processes and Procedures of the IPCC”. Netherlands: IAC, Viewed 17th October 2015 from, http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report.html.
Lawson, N. 2008“An Appeal To Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming”. London: Duckworth Overlook.
McLean, J. 2009 “Peer Review? What Peer Review? Failures of Scrutiny in the UN’s Fourth Assessment Report.” Science and Public Policy Institute. Washington DC.
Montford, Andrew 2010 “The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science”. London: Stacey International.
Nerlich, B., Koteyko, N. and Brown, B. 2010, “Theory and language of climate change communication,” WIREs Climate Change, Vol.1, no.1, p.97-110
Nordlund, G. 2008 Futures research and the IPCC assessment study on the effects of climate change Futures40, 873-876
Plimer, I. 2009, Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science. Lanham: Taylor Trade Publishing.
IPCC, 2015, organisation, Viewed 17th October 2015 from http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml