Search

With the advent of climate change as a major challenge of our time, Earth system modeling has become highly policy‐relevant regulatory science. In this situation, the social mechanisms that play a role in any scientific endeavor become particularly exposed. By discussing historical, philosophical, and sociological (HPS) aspects of the field's current "cultures of prediction" together with the physical science community in a physical science journal, we aim to provide an entry point into HPS reasoning for climate scientists interested in reflecting on their field and science in general. This paper, first, introduces our perspective on "science as culture" and climate modeling as "regulatory science" and, second, highlights and connects relevant ideas from the three commentaries that follow it. In so doing, we hope to give a fuller picture of climate science, the interplay it engenders between HPS and the physical sciences, the distinctions that it gives rise to as compared to some of the more traditional, exact, sciences in which it is rooted and its place in society including its role in scientific policy advice. Key Points: With the advent of climate change as a major challenge of our time, Earth system modeling has become highly policy relevantIn this situation, the social mechanisms that play a role in any scientific endeavor become particularly exposedThis paper introduces perspectives on "science as culture" and highlights relevant ideas from the three subsequent commentaries [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How can we understand climate change from a sociological perspective? In asking this question, we assume that Sociology has something to contribute to such an enterprise. The argument that we put forward is twofold: We argue that Sociology provides a much needed alternative to two dominant approaches that have influenced public discourse, behaviorist theories, mainly employed in Economics, and a belief in the centrality of science in policy making ("evidence first"), mainly entertained by physical scientists. We critically discuss both approaches, showing the limits of behaviorism and the linear model of policy making and provide an alternative framework, which emphasizes the role of social action, of organizations, and of structural differences between different social worlds. We then apply our framework to assess the role of evidence at the climate science‐policy interface and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as a boundary organization in particular. We argue that science and politics follow different logics and that the IPCC is simultaneously both more political and less policy relevant than its self‐description as "policy‐relevant, never policy prescriptive" tries to make us believe. We conclude that a depoliticization of politics by IPCC expert advice and a politicization of climate science occur simultaneously and mutually reinforce one another. The result is a lack of progress in climate policy as science has taken center stage but is unable to offer political solutions. Key Points: Applying sociological concepts, we assess how climate change has been framed by two influential disciplines (economics and the physical sciences)We provide an alternative framework which emphasizes the role of social action, of organizations, and of structural differences between different social worldsWe conclude that science and politics follow different logics and that boundary organizations such as the IPCC cannot escape this harsh reality [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]