IPCC's Climate Communication

The work of IPCC is an important work and contribution to the global discussion and global challenge of climate change. But this work is primarily based on computer modelling, natural science, economic science and as a new perspective a stronger focus on the risk perspective than in earlier IPCC reports. This paper is based on a wonder of why the IPCC’s analysis and reports are not, to a higher degree, based on social science and human science. Are these scientific perspectives with many different approaches not important to this global political awareness of climate change? Especially now when all the IPCC’s assessment report have concluded that climate changes are human made and recently stated that 97 % of all climate researchers agree in that conclusion. Due to the theoretical work of Michel Callon, Lascoumes and Barthe (2011) and their ANT perspective, climate change can be observed as a socio technical controversy, due to Bruno Latour (2004; 1998a; 1998b; 1993) and his ANT perspective as a hybrid formation and due to Niklas Luhmann’s system theory (2000, 1992, 1989) we meet the challenge of climate change within a series of structural couplings. The theoretical comparison of these concepts is the outset of this analysis. In the system-theory, climate problems and environmental problems fall between functional systems (Luhmann, 1989). In the ANT-perspective, climate problems and environmental problems are a result of the ‘Modern perception’ of divisions and how the divisions have diverted our attention from the development of hybrids, and their complex formation until they have become (or will become) pressing problems (Latour, 2004; 1998a; 1998b; 1993). Both these falling in between can be part of the explanation as to why the problems of climate changes are not easily solved.