Here is another insight into the workings of science. Biologists play an important role in climate science, of course. They closely observe changes in the flora or in migration patterns of animals, and they document how non-human beings are responsive to changes in climate. Their perception of climate change is maybe a different one from those of mathematicians or physicists; it is not only a curve on a screen. This is true for example for Dr. Parmesan, a renowned biologist and lead author of the IPCC: "I've already watched populations go extinct. A lot of people haven't seen much change within their systems. To them it's a thing that's far away, maybe 100 years from now, but I can see that it's not 100 years from now. It's right now." Read her story here.
Dr. Parmesan draws some interesting conclusions. One of them is the assisted migration of endangered species. There is no 'nature' anymore. In order to protect things natural, we have to manage their habitats. Consider this: in order to keep the air breathable and the planet livable, we even have to manage the thin climate envelope that protects us. Except we consider assisted migration of human beings to other planets as a viable alternative.
Anyway, I think it is interesting to see how different sciences deal with climate change. In our discussions on klimazwiebel, there are often arguments in favor of an objective and pure science. In reality, there are many different disciplines with their own traditions and approaches to the world. It is an illusion to believe that science is able to mirror the world outside. Scientists are experts in the co-construction with their objects of research of something real; this is different from purely mirroring reality.