ABSTRACT
The turbulence around climate science over recent months has been less about ‘what do we know about climate change?’ and more about ‘how do we know what we know?’ In other words, the controversial publication of the emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, UK, and arguments about errors in the IPCC report have raised important questions about the process of scientific knowledge-making rather than seriously challenging the core substance of that knowledge. Here I reflect on the experimental nature of the IPCC and why that means it is essential for the IPCC to learn from past mistakes and to reflect on the changing requirements for making authoritative public knowledge in a fast-changing world.
