Short abstract:

The IPCC is a global authority in the climate change discourse, but not the sole source. The pluralization of knowledge is a reality, challenging the idea of a unified voice in climate science. I will present a conceptual framework to gain a realistic understanding of its role and function.

Long abstract:

The IPCC is often hailed as the foremost authority in climate science for policy-making, recognized globally for its crucial reports. However, it does not hold a monopoly on knowledge, as various non-IPCC commentators contribute to public discourse, some skeptical of the IPCC's perceived stance. This pluralization of knowledge, though regrettable for those seeking a unified climate science voice, is a reality. Divergent opinions exist regarding the IPCC, with some accusing it of exaggerating climate risks, while others believe it downplays them. Some think the pluralization of knowledge is a serious problem and we should curate the content of the knowledge ecosystem, especially social media platforms. I will argue against such a position, drawing on conceptual work on expertise.

The IPCC is seen by some as an honest broker and a scientific body, while others view it as an issue advocate or a boundary organization between politics and science. Despite potential roles in different circumstances, understanding the IPCC's nature, functions, and its exercise of expertise is crucial. I propose a typology which aims to untangle this conceptual maze, presenting the IPCC as a significant commentator on climate change alongside various voices. The IPCC also assumes the roles of science arbiter, honest broker, and stealth advocate, but it notably falls short of delivering conventional policy advice.