SavedAdd your journal

Journals / İzmir İktisat Dergisi / 2008 / Cilt: 23 - Sayı: 1

CLIMATE CHANGE FROM A POST-NORMAL SCIENCE PERSPECTIVE

MUSTAFA DEMİRCİ
OSMAN PEKER
Pages
51–65
Publication Date
2016-07-25
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The paper demonstrates that the dominant problem formulation of climate change is not in line with the main propositions of Post Normal Science.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This paper is an attempt to discuss the dominant problem formulation of climate change from the perspective of Post-Normal Science.
📊
Key Findings & Data: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.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The paper demonstrates that the dominant problem formulation of climate change is not in line with the main propositions of Post Normal Science.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Climate Change · Climate Change Science · Climate Politics

Abstract

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.

Özet

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.

🔖

Cite This Article

DEMİRCİ, M., PEKER, O. (2016). CLIMATE CHANGE FROM A POST-NORMAL SCIENCE PERSPECTIVE. İzmir İktisat Dergisi, Cilt: 23 - Sayı: 1, 51–65. https://ajindex.com/articles/92458

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  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. IPCC, (1995), IPCC Second Assessment Climate Change 1995, www.ipcc.ch/pub/sa(E).pdf (16.05.2005). IPCC, (2001), Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report Summary for Policy Makers, www.ipcc.ch/pub/un/syreng/spm.pdf (16.05.2005). IPCC, (2007), Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis Summary for Policy Makers, http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf (06.03.2007).
  12. 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.
  13. KHILYUK, L. and G. V. CHILINGAR (2003), “Are We Confusing Cause and Effect”, Energ