This two-part paper details the arguments and evidence that have been marshalled by both climate scientists and social scientists to critique the current procedures and methodologies deployed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to represent the risks of anthropogenic forcing and a continuation of business-as-usual. In the first part, the rationale for moving from an atmospheric stabilisation target to an average surface temperature target is explained. This is followed by a discussion of the IPCC’s representations of nonlinear behaviour in relation to climate forcing, and the problems associated with using a single temperature target in assessing climate risk. An outline is then provided of efforts to define what can or should constitute physical, biological and socio-economic indicators of dangerous anthropogenic interference (DAI). The paper reviews the IPCC’s representations of sea-level rise to illustrate the argument that it continues to take insufficient account of the paleoclimate record and improved methods of modelling. Part 1 concludes by arguing that the IPCC continues to under-represent the risks associated with DAI. In the second part, the rationale and methodologies for reconfiguring international climate governance are discussed in more detail. Part 2 argues that the currently dominant model of international policymaking is primarily an outcome of compromises made by governments under pressure from powerful polluting industries and their business allies. It is argued that the political economy of international climate governance has produced systematic biases in the kinds of expertise and evidence that national governments deem appropriate for consideration via the IPCC and UNFCCC frameworks, along with the relative importance that is ascribed to them. Drawing on the research of climate scientists and social scientists, some suggestions for how to restructure and refocus the activities of the IPCC, UNFCCC and climate governance more generally are canvassed, including the necessity of creating far more interdisciplinary and democratically accountable structures of expertise for climate policy-making at the national and supra-national levels. Part 2 concludes with a discussion of the kinds of reforms which could be undertaken to reduce the ability of incumbent actors to shape climate policy and politics to their advantage.

中文翻译：

---

地球面临风险第 1 部分：重新评估 IPCC 进程中危险的人为干扰和气候风险


这篇由两部分组成的论文详细介绍了气候科学家和社会科学家整理的论点和证据，以批评政府间气候变化专门委员会 (IPCC) 和联合国气候变化框架公约 (UNFCCC) 现行的程序和方法。 ）代表人为强迫和一切照旧的持续的风险。在第一部分中，解释了从大气稳定目标转向平均表面温度目标的基本原理。接下来讨论了 IPCC 与气候强迫相关的非线性行为的表示，以及与使用单一温度目标评估气候风险相关的问题。然后概述了定义什么可以或应该构成危险人为干扰（DAI）的物理、生物和社会经济指标的努力。本文回顾了政府间气候变化专门委员会对海平面上升的表述，以说明其仍然没有充分考虑古气候记录和改进的建模方法的论点。第 1 部分的结论是，IPCC 仍然低估了与 DAI 相关的风险。第二部分更详细地讨论了重构国际气候治理的基本原理和方法。第二部分认为，目前国际决策的主导模式主要是政府在强大的污染行业及其商业盟友的压力下做出妥协的结果。 有人认为，国际气候治理的政治经济学在各国政府认为适合通过 IPCC 和 UNFCCC 框架考虑的专业知识和证据的种类以及赋予它们的相对重要性方面产生了系统性偏差。借鉴气候科学家和社会科学家的研究，探讨了如何更广泛地重组和重新调整 IPCC、UNFCCC 和气候治理活动重点的建议，包括建立更加跨学科和民主负责的气候专业知识结构的必要性国家和超国家层面的政策制定。第二部分最后讨论了可以采取哪些改革来降低现有行为者塑造气候政策和政治以使其受益的能力。