In this article, the broken science–society contract contention of Glavovic et al . (Glavovic et al . 2022 Clim. Dev . 14 , 829–833 (doi: 10.1080/17565529.2021.2008855 )) and their posit of the tragedy of climate change science will be examined in relation to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) employment of integrated assessment models (IAMs) in the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6). The article will assess, empirically, Skea et al .’s (Skea et al . 2021 WIREs Clim. Change 12 , 1-11 (doi: 10.1002/wcc.727 )) IPCC AR6-and-beyond IAM transparency roadmap by appraising the efficacy of the ‘ actions taken ’ for achieving transparency in the AR6. If the IPCC was to earnestly assure the transformation of IAM clarity from its present state of a black-box to that of a glass-box, then its proclaimed mantra of ‘ neutral, policy relevant but not policy prescriptive ’ could be received with high confidence. Until then, the IPCC endangers its objectivity, its integrity and its scientific standing in society owing to the Panel’s non-compliance with the published Principles Governing IPCC Work as to expected transparency standards. Accordingly, the operation of opaque IAMs for purported ‘relevant but not prescriptive’ policy guidance has resulted in the IPCC’s blurring of the science-policy boundary as a consequence of the IPCC-Integrated Assessment Modelling Consortium contingent’s breaching of the science–society contract.
Simon Robertson (Mon,) studied this question.