Abstract
This comment is a response to the 2-part paper ‘Global climate protection policy: the limits of scientific advice’ by Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen recently published in Global Environmental Change. We present some problems with Boehmer-Christiansen's core argument that the involvement of the research community in the IPCC has primarily been motivated by the desire to acquire more research funds. We stress the role of negotiation (between different groups and at different levels) at the IPCC and discuss some of its learning processes. We also use this case to comment on the role of the interpretative social sciences in global environmental change research.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
