Among the political scientists, O'Riordan (1995:5)
has argued that environmental science needs to see itself as
part of the structures of pressure, power, lobbying, prejudice
and dispute resolution, what has been termed "civic science".
The history of the Framework Convention on Global Climate Change,
however, showed environmental scientists firmly grasping this
concept to become manipulators as well as tools of state and
international institutions. One strategy was to separate "science"
from "policy" in time-honoured fashion, a division that remains
essentially contested (Buzan, 1984:7, citing W.B. Gallie) on
both general grounds and with regard to the climate convention's
decision-making process. Nevertheless, this proved sound strategically,
particularly because of the implications of the policy recommendations
for the economy and industry.
The process showed that only a paradigm which
acknowledges the predominant role of nation-states, the agenda-setting
capabilities of national and international actors such as industry
and the public, and the self-interested contribution of other
players can fully explain developments. The scientists, led
by 'reductionist' British research managers, promoted a narrow
view of science's contribution to the debate while at the same
time formulating their assessment in terms that strengthened
their claims to public science budgets. They were also able
to assert scientific hegemony over the issues, excluding much
from public debate. Perhaps it is therefore is not surprizing
that Professor Bolin, identified as close to the Swedish Government,
has asserted as chair of the IPPC: "In my view, it is impossible
to resolve key scientific issues in articles aimed at the general
public.[...] the scientific issues cannot so easily be explained"