World climate research: an (un)comfortable coexistence among science and scientists' opinion

Full text: Full text: My hypothesis is that the effective global governance so urgently needed in relation to greenhouse climate change is not developing, in part, because climate research scientists are failing to communicate well. This is, I believe, because traditionally science has informed society through a sequence of steps moving from facts, through assessment, projection, risk evaluation to policy for changed governance. Any prioritisation, facilitation, and co-ordination activity (such as the World Climate Research Programme) has to be concerned about the way in which science participates in policy. The range of options encompasses: Hands off: it is the job of policy, not science to make decisions; Recognise risk: provide credible and defensible information to help deal with risk; Inform people: because the ultimate policy-maker is the public. Good global governance of common resource, the climate, uses risk management to avoid free riding. History teaches that international cooperation can be successful, e.g. protection of the ozone layer. Some international collective moves towards global carbon governance are occurring: multilateral frameworks such as the UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol and its follow-up (endorsed by the G8 in June) and domestic mandatory goals set by the EU, UK, China, California and other US states. It is very clear that the world must move from actuarial style climate risk management strategy (history as a good predictor of future) to a dynamically-based prediction and management regime. The urgency of this includes that while mitigation costs are high, delaying action increases them (e.g. Stern 2006; IPCC 2007); that atmospheric concentration of C02 is 380 ppmv (up from the pre-industrial 270 ppmv); current emissions are already higher than the 1990s IPCC scenarios; positive feedbacks seem to predominate; and finally social and climate systems inertias of decades mean that the world is already committed to unrealised warming. Stronger and more coordinated action is required to stabilise concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Indeed, public pressure is rising for a 'preferred future' view, i.e. one based on acceptance of risk. My challenge to the world climate research community is: should emergency international climate research be directed to aid development of new global carbon governance structures? If so, how should this be accomplished?