This is a series of 5 surveys No. 1 and 2 from 1996 and 2003: https://www.academia.edu/4484361/The_Bray_and_von_Storch-surveys_of_the_perceptions_of_climate_scientists_1996_2003_report_codebooks_and_XLS_data No. 3 from 2008: https://www.academia.edu/2365610/The_Bray-and-von_Storch_Surveys_on_the_perceptions_of_climate_scientists_2008_3_report_codebook_and_XLS_data No. 4 from 2013: https://www.academia.edu/5211187/The_Bray-and-von_Storch_Surveys_A_survey_of_the_perceptions_of_climate_scientists_2013_report_codebook_and_XLS_data No. 5 from 2015/16 https://www.academia.edu/26328070/The_Bray-and-von_Storch_5th_International_Survey_of_Climate_Scientists_2015_2016_Report_codebook_and_XLS_data

"This report presents the findings of two surveys of climate scientists’ perceptions of the global warming issue. The first survey was conducted in 1996 and the second survey in 2003. A brief text section demonstrates some of the significant findings. The surveys investigate the means by which scientific conclusions are reached and the climate scientists interpretations of what these conclusions might mean. The complete responses to the surveys are presented in Appendix A: Tables and Appendix B: Figures. Each table and figure is presented in a manner to indicate statistically significant change in scientists perspectives over the period of the two surveys." This is part 2 of a series of 4. No. 4 from 2013 is here: https://www.academia.edu/5191473/The_Bray_and_von_Storch-survey_of_the_perceptions_of_climate_scientists_2013_report_codebook_and_XLS_data and No. 3 from 2008 on https://www.academia.edu/2365610/The_Bray_and_von_Storch-survey_of_the_perceptions_of_climate_scientists_2008_report_codebook_amd_XLS_data

This report presents the findings of a survey of climate scientists’ perceptions of the global warming issue. The survey was conducted in 2015/16. The survey includes the following sections: demographics of participants, participants’ assessment of climate science, the utility of models, extreme events, attribution of extreme events, climate and society, science and society. This is #5 of a series of 5 No. 1 and 2 from 1996 and 2003: https://www.academia.edu/4484361/The_Bray_and_von_Storch-surveys_of_the_perceptions_of_climate_scientists_1996_2003_report_codebooks_and_XLS_data No. 3 from 2008: https://www.academia.edu/2365610/The_Bray-and-von_Storch_Surveys_on_the_perceptions_of_climate_scientists_2008_3_report_codebook_and_XLS_data No. 4 from 2013: https://www.academia.edu/5211187/The_Bray-and-von_Storch_Surveys_A_survey_of_the_perceptions_of_climate_scientists_2013_report_codebook_and_XLS_data No. 5 from 2015/16 https://www.academia.edu/26328070/The_Bray-and-von_Storch_5th_International_Survey_of_Climate_Scientists_2015_2016_Report_codebook_and_XLS_data

In 1942 Robert K. Merton tried to demonstrate the structure of the normative system of science by specifying the norms that characterized it. The norms were assigned the abbreviation CUDOs: Communism, Universalism, Disinterestedness, and Organized skepticism. Using the results of an on-line survey of climate scientists concerning the norms of science, this paper explores the climate scientists' subscription to these norms. The data suggests that while Merton's CUDOs remain the overall guiding moral principles, they are not fully endorsed or present in the conduct of climate scientists: there is a tendency to withhold results until publication, there is the intention of maintaining property rights, there is external influence defining research and the tendency to assign the significance of authored work according to the status of the author rather than content of the paper. These are contrary to the norms of science as proposed by Robert K. Merton.

Climate scientists are finding themselves ill-prepared to engage with the often emotionally, politically and ideologically charged public discourse on the evaluation and use of their science. This is proving unhelpful to evidence-based policy formulation, and is damaging their public standing. As a result, there is a pressing need to re-examine and clarify the roles of climate scientists in policy, decision-making and public engagement. Their professional norms, values and practices need to be reconsidered and revised accordingly. In expanding their skills and expertise to better match societal needs, climate scientists can benefit from a mutually supportive working relationship with social and behavioural scientists, and with experts in public engagement and communication. Such reforms alone will not be sufficient to achieve a more constructive and effective formulation of policy and an improved public discourse, but they provide a crucial step toward those objectives.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) proceeds on the assumption that scientific consensus is a tool for successful climate communication. While 'speaking with one voice' has contributed to the Panel's success in putting climate change on the public and political agenda, the consensus policy is also contested, as our literature analysis (n=106) demonstrates. The arguments identified thereby inform a survey of climate scientists (n=138), who are the ones responsible for realising the policy. The data indicate moderate support for the consensus policy but significantly more in traditional climate sciences than in social sciences, life-and geosciences. Abstract Environmental communication; Science and policy-making Keywords https://doi.