Talk:Integrated assessment modelling

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Integrated assessment modelling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080110233636/http://www.tias.uni-osnabrueck.de/ to http://www.tias.uni-osnabrueck.de/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Removed content under "shortcomings"

I've removed this content as it was written in an essay-like style and highly academic. Note I've also removed a text block by the same user from the carbon dioxide removal article:

"Due to the high policy relevance of integrated assessment, particularly through the use of IAMs, in Working Group III (Mitigation) of the IPCC, these models have also become the subject of investigation in various critical scientific approaches, such as Science and Technology Studies or Political Ecology. In this sense, the models are shown to contribute to political agenda setting. This becomes particularly evident in the case of negative emissions. This critique focuses less on technical details than on the societal impacts of supposedly neutral assumptions and on scientific practice itself. The research process is understood to be shaped by social, political, and economic conditions, such as epistemic cultures, institutional power relations, and political expectations of "useful" science. In this way, IAMs may unintentionally legitimize existing social conditions. To counter this, the use of models in combination with other methods, or even artistic approaches, has been proposed. More radical critiques, by contrast, advocate participatory research with a visionary orientation—for example, through the concept of categorical utopia—in order to explore alternative transformation pathways or futures, including those situated beyond a capitalist economic structure." EMsmile (talk) 22:44, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the academic language. I have tried to improve this paragraph and would like to add it to the article. As I think Integrated Assessment Modelling is a scientific method that has been criticized by other disciplines, this aspect is relevant for the reader of this article to have a more complete picture of this method:

Due to the high policy relevance of integrated assessment, particularly through the use of IAMs in Working Group III (Mitigation) of the IPCC, these models have also been the subject of study in fields such as Science and Technology Studies and Political Ecology.Results of IAM studies have been highly influential on political agenda setting, particularly regarding negative emissions. This research emphasizes the societal context of modelling assumptions and scientific practice, rather than technical details. The models are shaped by social, political, and economic conditions, including epistemic cultures, institutional power relations, and expectations of policy-relevant science. In this way, IAMs have been criticized for reinforcing existing social and economic injustices. To address this, the use of models in combination with other methods, including artistic approaches, participatory approaches as well as visions beyond capitalist economics have been proposed. Juni Freeman (talk) 14:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I find your proposed new paragraph still rather "wordy" and difficult to understand for a layperson. Maybe a much condensed version of this content could work. Please also note that you listed 6 references but they're actually only 3 different ones (and all are primary sources). - But this topic is not my area of expertise, so I hope that someone else who is watching this page and understands IAM better than I do could also weigh in. EMsmile (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I understand the concerns about the paragraph being too wordy and academic.

My intention was to summarize a body of literature that examines the broader societal role of integrated assessment models. A shorter version might read as follows:

"Because integrated assessment models play an important role in climate mitigation assessments—particularly in the work of the IPCC’s Working Group III—they have also been examined by scholars in fields such as Science and Technology Studies and Political Ecology. This research argues that modeling practices and assumptions have ethical implications and can influence climate policy debates, for example by shaping expectations about mitigation pathways such as those involving negative emissions. Futhermore, IAMs are criticized to insufficiently deal with issues of justice.

Some authors therefore emphasize the social and institutional context in which models are developed and used, and have suggested combining modeling with other approaches, including participatory or interdisciplinary methods, to explore a wider range of possible futures."

If this condensed version seems more appropriate for the article, I would be happy to adjust it further. I have also added more references. Some of them are primary sources and two of them literature reviews of academic debates. Juni Freeman (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I think this version is better, and could fit into this article. By the way, have you tried chat-gpt or other LLMs to simplify your language? I find it quite useful to prompt an LLM with "please simplify this paragraph so that it suits the style of a Wikipedia article". I often use it for inspiration when I try to make content easier to understand. - If you want to add your proposed new text into this article I would be fine with it. EMsmile (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback! I already tried to simplify it with a LLM. I have added the paragraph now to the article. Juni Freeman (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

References

EMsmile (talk) 22:44, 9 November 2025 (UTC)