1.Hulme, M. 2016. 1.5 °C and climate research after the Paris Agreement. Nature Climate Change 6(3), 222–224.
2.Beck, S., Forsyth, T., Kohler, P., Lahsen, M., & Mahony, M. 2017. The Making of Global Environmental Science and Politics. In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 4th Edition, (ed. Felt, U., Fouché, R., Miller, C.A. & Smith-Doerr, L.), pp. 1059–1086. MIT Press.
3.Hoppe, R., Wesselink, A., & Cairns, R. 2013. Lost in the problem: the role of boundary organisations in the governance of climate change. WIREs: Climate Change, 4(4), 283–300.
4.Jasanoff, S. 2012. Science and Public Reason. Routledge.
5.Barben, D., Fisher, E., Selin, C., & Guston, D.H. 2008. Anticipatory Governance of Nanotechnology: Foresight, Engagement, and Integration. In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 3rd edition, (ed. Hackett, E.J., Amsterdamska, O., Lynch, M. & Wajcman, J.), pp. 979–1000. MIT Press.
6.Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., & Stilgoe, J. 2012. Responsible research and innovation: from science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 751–760.
7.Polanyi, M. 1962. The republic of science: its political and economic theory. Minerva, 1, 54–73.
8.Ezrahi, Y. 1990. The Descent of Icarus,. Harvard University Press.
9.Gieryn, T.F. 1983. Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48(6), 781–795.
10.Guston, D.H. 2001. Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 26(4), 399–408.
11.Mahony, M. 2015. Climate change and the geographies of objectivity: the case of the IPCC's burning embers diagram. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 40, 153–167.
12.Jasanoff, S. 2004. Ordering Knowledge, Ordering Society. In States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order, (ed. Jasanoff, S.), pp. 13–45. Routledge.
13.Jasanoff, S., & Kim, S.H. 2015. Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power,. University of Chicago Press.
14.Selin, C. 2008. The sociology of the future: tracing stories of technology and time. Sociology Compass, 2(6), 1878–1895.
15.Low, S. 2017. The futures of climate engineering. Earth's Future, 5(1), 67–71.
17.Stilgoe, J. 2015. Experiment Earth: Responsible Innovation in Geoengineering,. Routledge.
18.Himmelsbach, R. 2018. How scientists advising the European Commission on research priorities view climate engineering proposals. Science and Public Policy, 45(1), 124–133.
19.Fuss, S., Canadell, J.G., Peters, G.P., Tavoni, M., Andrew, R.M., Ciais, P., Jackson, R.B., Jones, C.D., Kraxner, F., Nakicenovic, N., Le Quéré, C., Raupach, M.R., Sharifi, A., Smith, S., & Yamagata, Y. 2014. Betting on negative emissions. Nature Climate Change, 4(10), 850–853.
20.Anderson, K. 2015. Duality in climate science. Nature Geoscience, 8(12), 898–900.
22.Ricke, K.L., Millar, R.J., & MacMartin, D.G. 2017. Constraints on global temperature target overshoot. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 14743.
23.Flegal, J.A., & Gupta, A. 2017. Evoking equity as a rationale for solar geoengineering research? Scrutinizing emerging expert visions of equity. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 18(1), 45–61.
24.de Goede, M., & Randalls, S. 2009. Precaution, Preemption: Arts and Technologies of the Actionable Future. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 27(5), 859–878.
25.Miller, C.A. 2004. Climate Science and the Making of a Global Political Order. In States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order, (ed. Jasanoff, S.), pp. 46–66. Routledge.
27.Bodansky, D. 2001. The History of the Global Climate Change Regime. In International Relations and Global Climate Change, (ed. Luterbacher, U. & Sprinz, D.F.), pp. 23–40. MIT Press.
29.Bolin, B. 1994. Science and policy making. Ambio, 23(1), 25–29.
30.Haas, P.M. 1992. Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46(1), 1–35.
31.Pielke, R.A. Jr. 2007. The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics,. Cambridge University Press.
32.Nakicenovic, N., Alcamo, J., Grubler, A., Riahi, K., Roehrl, R.A., Rogner, H.H., & Victor, N. 2000. Emissions Scenarios a Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES): a Special Report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,. Cambridge University Press.
33.Oreskes, N. 2015. How earth science has become a social science. Historical Social Research, 40(2), 246–270.
34.Moss, R.H. 1995. The IPCC: policy relevant (not driven) scientific assessment: a comment on Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen's ‘Global climate protection policy, the limits of scientific advice’. Global Environmental Change, 5(3), 171–174.
35.Lövbrand, E. 2011. Co-producing European climate science and policy. A cautionary note on the funding and making of useful knowledge. Science and Public Policy, 38(3), 225–236.
36.Preston, C.A. 2016. Introduction: Climate Justice and Geoengineering. In Climate Justice and Geoengineering: Ethics and Policy in the Atmospheric Anthropocene, (ed. Preston, C.A.), pp. vii-xxiii. Rowman & Littlefield International.
37.van Vuuren, D.P., Elzen, M., Lucas, P.L., Eickhout, B., Strengers, B.J., Van Ruijven, B., Wonink, S., & Houdt, R. 2007. Stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations at low levels: an assessment of reduction strategies and costs. Climatic Change, 81(2), 119–159.
38.Rosen, R.A. 2015. IAMs and peer review. Nature, 5(5), 390.
39.Beck, M., & Krueger, T. 2016. The epistemic, ethical, and political dimensions of uncertainty in integrated assessment modeling. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 7(5), 627–645.
41.Anderson, K., & Peters, G. 2016. The trouble with negative emissions. Science, 354, 182–183.
42.Weyant, J., Azar, C., Kainuma, M., Kejun, J., Nakicenovic, N., Shukla, P.R., & Yohe, G. Report of 2.6 versus 2.9 Watts/m2 RCPP Evaluation Panel. Integrated Assessment Modelling Consortium. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.862.3&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Accessed 26 March 2018.
43.Edenhofer, O., & Kowarsch, M. 2015. Cartography of pathways: a new model for environmental policy assessments. Environmental Science & Policy, 51, 56–64.
45.Rayner, S. 2016. What might Evans-Pritchard have made of two degrees? Anthropology Today, 32(4), 1–2.
47.Geden, O. 2016. The Paris Agreement and the inherent inconsistency of climate policymaking. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 7(6), 790–797.
48.Victor, D.G. 2015. Embed the social sciences in climate policy. Nature, 520(7545), 27–29.
49.Vervoort, J., & Gupta, A. 2018. Anticipating climate futures in a 1.5 °C era: the link between foresight and governance. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 31, 104–111.
50.Vaughan, N.E., & Gough, C. 2016. Expert assessment concludes negative emissions scenarios may not deliver. Environmental Research Letters, 11(9), 95003.
51.Stirling, A. 2008. ‘Opening up’ and ‘closing down’: power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology and Human Values, 33, 262–294.
52.Bellamy, R., Chilvers, J., Vaughan, N.E., & Lenton, T. 2012. A review of climate geoengineering appraisals. WIREs Climate Change, 3, 597–615.
53.Fridahl, M. 2017. Socio-political prioritization of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. Energy Policy, 104, 89–99.
54.Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. 2013. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568–1580.
55.Bellamy, R. 2016. A sociotechnical framework for governing climate engineering. Science Technology, & Human Values, 41(2), 135–162.
57.Cairns, R.C. 2014. Climate geoengineering: issues of path-dependence and socio-technical lock-in. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 5(5), 649–661.
58.Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2014. IPCC Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change,. Contribution of Working Group III to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva.
63.Nordmann, A. 2007. If and then: a critique of speculative nanoethics. NanoEthics, 1(1), 31–46.
64.Hallegatte, S., Rogelj, J., Allen, M., Clarke, L., Edenhofer, O., Field, C.B., Friedlingstein, P., Van Kesteren, L., Knutti, R., Mach, K.J., Mastrandrea, M., Michel, A., Minx, J., Oppenheimer, M., Plattner, G-K., Riahi, R., Schaeffer, M., Stocker, T., & Van Vuuren, D. 2016. Mapping the climate change challenge. Nature Climate Change, 6(7), 663–668.
65.Williamson, P. 2016. Emissions reduction: scrutinize CO2 removal methods. Nature, 530, 153–155.
66.Pielke, R. Jr., Wigley, T., & Green, C. 2008. Dangerous assumptions. Nature, 452(7187), 531.
69.Lahsen, M. 2005. seductive simulations? Uncertainty distribution around climate models. Social Studies of Science, 35(6), 895–922.
70.Bellamy, R., Chilvers, J., Vaughan, N.E., & Lenton, T. 2013. ‘Opening up’ geoengineering appraisal: multi-criteria mapping of options for tackling climate change. Global Environmental Change, 23, 926–937.