Uncertainty management in the IPCC: agreeing to disagree
نویسندگان
چکیده
Looking back over three and a half Assessment Reports, we see that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has given increasing attention to the management and reporting of uncertainties, but coordination across working groups (WGs) has remained an issue. We argue that there are good reasons for working groups to use different methods to assess uncertainty, thus it is better that working groups agree to disagree rather than seek to bring everybody on one party line.
منابع مشابه
Agreeing to disagree: Uncertainty management in assessing climate change, impacts and responses by the IPCC
Dealing consistently with risk and uncertainty across the IPCC reports is a difficult challenge. Huge practical difficulties arise from the Panel's scale and interdisciplinary context, the complexity of the climate change issue and its political context. The key question of this paper is if the observed differences in the handling of uncertainties by the three IPCC Working Groups can be clarifi...
متن کاملEuthanasia: agreeing to disagree?
In discussions about the legalisation of active, voluntary euthanasia it is sometimes claimed that what should happen in a liberal society is that the two sides in the debate "agree to disagree". This paper explores what is entailed by agreeing to disagree and shows that this is considerably more complicated than what is usually believed to be the case. Agreeing to disagree is philosophically p...
متن کاملAgreeing to Disagree with Limit Knowledge
The possibility for agents to agree to disagree is considered in an extended epistemic-topological framework. In such an enriched context, Aumann’s impossibility theorem is shown to no longer hold. More precisely, agents with a common prior belief satisfying limit knowledge instead of common knowledge of their posterior beliefs may actually entertain distinct posterior beliefs. Hence, agents ca...
متن کامل“Agreeing to disagree” type results: a decision-theoretic approach
This paper explores interactive epistemology within Morris’ [S. Morris, Alternative definitions of knowledge, in: M.O.L. Bacharach, L.-A. Gerard-Varet, P. Mongin, H.S. Shin (Eds.), Epistemic Logic and the Theory of Games and Decisions, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Amsterdam, 1997, pp. 217–233] framework of knowledge. Specifically, this paper proves a generalized “agreeing to disagree” result. Th...
متن کاملDeludedly Agreeing to Agree
We study conditions relating to the impossibility of agreeing to disagree in models of interactive KD45 belief (in contrast to models of S5 knowledge, which are used in nearly all the agreements literature). We show that even when the truth axiom is not assumed it turns out that players will find it impossible to agree to disagree under fairly broad conditions.
متن کامل