Reiner Grundmann

Climate change and knowledge politics

Abstract This paper addresses the paradox that although the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has reached a broad consensus, various governments pursue different, if not opposing policies. This puzzle not only challenges the traditional belief that scientific knowledge is objective and can be more or less directly translated into political action, but also calls for a better understanding of the relation between science and public policy in modern society. Based on the conceptual framework of knowledge politics the use of expert knowledge in public discourse and in political decisions will be analysed. This will be carried out through a country comparison between the United States and Germany. The main finding is that the press in both countries relies on different sources of scientific expertise when reporting on global warming. In a similar way, governments in both countries use these different sources for legitimising their contrasting policies.

Disputed climate science in the media: Do countries matter?

This article presents findings from a large-scale newspaper analysis of climate change discourses in four developed countries, using corpus linguistics methodology. We map the discourse over time, showing peaks and troughs of attention and explaining their causes. Different connotations of common terms such as global warming and climate change in different countries are analysed. Cluster and key-word analysis show the relative salience of specific words and word combinations during crucial periods. We identify main claims makers and the relative visibility of advocates and sceptics. The main finding is that former are far more prominent in all countries. We also look at the coverage of ‘climategate’. Finally, we make reference to existing theoretical frameworks.

Ozone and climate : Scientific consensus and leadership

This article compares the cases of ozone layer protection and climate change. In both cases, scientific expertise has played a comparatively important role in the policy process. The author argues that against conventional assumptions, scientific consensus is not necessary to achieve ambitious political goals. However, the architects of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change operated under such assumptions. The author argues that this is problematic both from a theoretical viewpoint and from empirical evidence. Contrary to conventional assumptions, ambitious political regulations in the ozone case were agreed under scientific uncertainty, whereas the negotiations on climate change were much more modest albeit based on a large scientific consensus. On the basis of a media analysis, the author shows that the creation of a climate of expectation plus pressure from leader countries is crucial for success.

'Climategate' and the Scientific Ethos

In late 2009, e-mails from a server at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia were released that showed some climate scientists in an unfavorable light. Soon this scandal was known as “Climategate” and a highly charged debate started to rage on blogs and in the mass media. Much of the debate has been about the question whether anthropogenic global warming was undermined by the revelations. But ethical issues, too, became part and parcel of the debate. This article aims to contribute to this debate, assessing the e-mail affair in the light of two normative analyses of science, one proposed by Robert Merton (and developed further by some of his followers), the second by a recent suggestion to use the concept of honest brokering in science policy interactions. On the basis of these analyses, different aspects of malpractice will be discussed and possible solutions will be suggested.

Why Is Werner Sombart Not Part of the Core of Classical Sociology? From Fame to (Near) Oblivion

The life and work of Werner Sombart poses an intellectual puzzle in the genealogy of modern social theorists. During his lifetime, Sombart was probably the most influential and prominent social scientist in Germany as well as in many other countries. Today he is among the least known social scientists. Why did he lose his status as one of the most brilliant and influential scholars and intellectuals of the 20th century? Why is his work almost forgotten today? While Webers thesis about the influence of Protestantism on the development of capitalism is widely known, even beyond sociological circles, few sociologists today know that Sombart had an alternative explanation. An obvious explanation for Sombarts fall from grace is his embrace of Nazism. As Heidegger provides a counter-example, Sombarts fate requires a more complex explanation. In addition, we explore the different reception of his work in economic and sociological circles as compared to cultural theory and history.

Climate Change: What Role for Sociology? A Response to Constance Lever-Tracy

In a previous issue of this journal, Constance Lever-Tracy called on sociologists to become more involved in the debates about anthropogenic climate change. In this response to her article, the authors support her general argument but query four of her tenets: (1) they see other reasons for the lack of interest in climate change among sociologists; (2) they argue that the true challenge to climate change research is interdisciplinarity (as opposed to multidisciplinarity); (3) they emphasize the virtues of constructivism; and (4), while Lever-Tracy argues that climate change should be at the heart of the discipline, in the authors’ view, unless this is to be mere wishful thinking, there is a need to carefully consider the prospects of such an enterprise.

Beyond Counting Climate Consensus

ABSTRACT Several studies have been using quantified consensus within climate science as an argument to foster climate policy. Recent efforts to communicate such scientific consensus attained a high public profile but it is doubtful if they can be regarded successful. We argue that repeated efforts to shore up the scientific consensus on minimalist claims such as “humans cause global warming” are distractions from more urgent matters of knowledge, values, policy framing and public engagement. Such efforts to force policy progress through communicating scientific consensus misunderstand the relationship between scientific knowledge, publics and policymakers. More important is to focus on genuinely controversial issues within climate policy debates where expertise might play a facilitating role. Mobilizing expertise in policy debates calls for judgment, context and attention to diversity, rather than deferring to formal quantifications of narrowly scientific claims.

Social control and knowledge in democratic societies

In this article we introduce the notions of knowledge policy and the politics of knowledge. These have to be distinguished from the older, well-known terms of research policy, or science and technology policy. While the latter aim to foster the development of innovations in knowledge and its applications, the former is aware of side effects of new knowledge and tries to address them. While research policy takes the aims of innovations as largely unproblematic (insofar as they help improving national competitiveness), knowledge policy tries to govern (regulate, control, restrict, or even forbid) the production of knowledge. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

The European public sphere and the deficit of democracy

This chapter explores a threefold European deficit: a democratic deficit, a deficit in European identity, and a deficit in the European public sphere. It argues that although interests such as social movements have most leverage at the national level, since this is the level at which the media are largely organised, the emergence of distinctively ‘European’ issues such as BSE means that national cycles of media attention are becoming increasingly synchronised. This makes it more likely that a homogenisation of issues and opinion will occur at the European level. This would favour the eventual emergence of a supranational identity. The creation of a European public sphere through the synchronisation and homogenisation of cycles of media attention on contentious ‘European’ issues is a more realistic prospect than direct attempts to create a ‘new European’ identity through public education or the legal system.

How Does Knowledge Relate to Political Action

In this paper we investigate the relation between knowledge and political action, focusing on knowledge claims stemming from science that at the same time have relevance in a policy context. In so doing, we will revisit some well-known and some lesser known approaches, such as C.P. Snows thesis of the two cultures and Mannheims conceptualization of theory and practice. We arrive at a distinction between knowledge for practice and practical knowledge, which we briefly apply to the case of climate change science and policy. We state as our thesis that policy is ever more reliant on knowledge, but science can deliver ever less certainty. Political decisions and programs have to recognize this fact, either implicitly or explicitly. This creates a paradox that is normally resolved through the political decision and not the dissemination of “truth” in the sense of uncontested knowledge. We use the case of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as an example.