[...] Dans un monde « parfait », dans lequel la science et la politique sont harmonieusement séparées, le GIEC ne devrait pas produire de recherche scientifique ni faire de recommandations sur les actions à adopter pour lutter contre le changement climatique et ses impacts. Il serait juste « susceptible d’orienter les politiques sans pour autant préconiser des choix précis » (policy-relevant, policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive). Dans la pratique, cette neutralité est régulièrement remise en question par la participation active des gouvernements dans la production des rapports, en particulier lors de l’approbation par consensus des résumés du GIEC à l’intention des décideurs [...]

Cet article propose une réflexion politique sur une organisation internationale très peu étudiée en relations internationales : le Groupe d’experts intergouvernemental sur l’évolution du climat (GIEC). Souvent reconnu pour son autorité scientifique, le GIEC est également une arène qui nourrit d’intenses débats politiques car il associe les gouvernements à ses décisions. Derrière des rapports très techniques à première vue, il fonde également les bases des négociations politiques sur le climat, en particulier par la rédaction et la diffusion de son Résumé à l’intention des décideurs (RID).

In the 1990s, a discourse emerged within global environmental change research underlining the need to go beyond previously held boundaries between science and society. While not entirely new, this discourse has however reached the highest levels of scientific cooperation embodied among others in the Future Earth (FE) platform and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Using the concept of (anti)-boundary work developed in Science and Technology Studies (STS), we trace shifts in discourses about the boundaries between social and natural disciplines; between scientists and societal actors; and finally, between the definition of problems and the provision of solutions. We do so analyzing the emergence of global sustainability and solution-oriented science in the discourses of scientific and political actors involved in FE and the IPCC. We conclude with a discussion of challenges connected to the implementation of solution-oriented research and assessment. This article is part of a special issue on solution-oriented GEAs.

Alors que les appels en faveur de l’interdisciplinarité se multiplient, en particulier dans les études sur le changement climatique et ses impacts, cette démarche reste encore un objet méconnu pour de nombreux chercheurs. Au-delà des débats épistémologiques sur la définition de l’interdisciplinarité, sa mise en œuvre pratique reste également peu discutée. Dans la lignée des réflexions sur l’interdisciplinarité comme approche forgée au moyen d’interactions et de dialogues, cet article propose de revenir sur le rôle de l’animation scientifique dans la construction de cette démarche, en décrivant l’expérience du GIS CES (Groupement d’intérêt scientifique Climat Environnement Société). Nous présentons les réflexions au sein du groupement ainsi que les initiatives et outils développés et testés pour renforcer le dialogue interdisciplinaire.

The aim of the project MEDEA is to use digital mapping tools to try and trace the provenance and pivot points in these debates within different institutional settings. We look principally at the construction of scientific expertise in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the evolution of adaptation as an issue within the international negotiations of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). We also have a separate case study that follows regional deliberations on climate impacts and water management in the southwest of France. This website presents the results from the first two investigations of this ANR funded project, which was was made possible by a joint collaboration between social and data scientists (Sciences Po, médialab), climate scientists (Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et l'Environnement) and designers (Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Arts Décoratifs). Experimental in its combination of disciplines and digital data methods, our mapping activities attempt to make legible to a non-expert public the institutional and topical transformations within the leading scientific and political arenas of the climate debate.

This article proposes an original analysis of the international debate on climate change through the use of digital methods. Its originality is twofold. First, it examines a corpus of reports covering 18 years of international climate negotiations, a dataset never explored before through digital techniques. This corpus is particularly interesting because it provides the most consistent and detailed reporting of the negotiations of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Second, in this paper we test an original approach to text analysis that combines automatic extractions and manual selection of the key issue-terms. Through this mixed approach, we tried to obtain relevant findings without imposing them on our corpus. The originality of our corpus and of our approach encouraged us to question some of the habits of digital research and confront three common misunderstandings about digital methods that we discuss in the first part of the article (section ‘Three misunderstandings on digital methods in social sciences’). In addition to reflecting on methodology, however, we also wanted to offer some substantial contribution to the understanding of UN-framed climate diplomacy. In the second part of the article (section ‘Three maps on climate negotiations’) we will therefore introduce some of the preliminary results of our analysis. By discussing three visualizations, we will analyze the thematic articulation of the climatic negotiations, the rise and fall of these themes over time and the visibility of different countries in the debate.

This website presents the results of the EU research project EMAPS, as well as its process: an experiment to use computation and visualization to harness the increasing availability of digital data and mobilize it for public debate. To do so, EMAPS gathered a team of social and data scientists, climate experts and information designers. It also reached out beyond the walls of Academia and engaged with the actors of the climate debate.

Earth's climate is changing. Slowly but inexorably. As determined by the latest IPCC Assessment Report (2014), the actions so far to reduce greenhouse emissions are insufficient and the first impacts of global warming are beginning to show. Like it or not, our collective life will have to adapt to its changing environment and the trade-offs will not be easy or painless. This awareness is prompting the emergence of debates around the world about how best to adapt to a changing climate.

The election of Donald J. Trump as the 45th President of the United States reminded us that climate deniers are anything but endangered species. In this short paper, we discuss President Trump’s position on climate change in the wider context of climate controversies and denial. In particular, we put it into perspective with other notorious contrarian leaders and their influence on national and international climate politics. Finally, we provide a brief analysis of President Trump discourses on climate change and discuss them in light of reflections about post-truth politics.

La question controversée de l’extraction du gaz de schiste est passée depuis quelques années de l’Amérique du Nord au reste du monde et nourrit un débat public intense dans chaque pays qui envisage son exploitation ou expérimentation. Le procédé d’extraction de ce gaz naturel, la fracturation hydraulique ou plus communément fracking , et les impacts de cette pratique sur l’environnement sont au cœur d’une controverse technoscientifique qui mobilise un large éventail d’acteurs...