In this chapter, I will argue that scientific climate mitigation scenarios and pathways help create visions of the future, and that scenarios of a certain centrality or political and scientific le-gitimacy end up influencing the kinds of future developments deemed to be desirable or achiev-able. The argument will be supported by an overview of relevant research and is illustrated by an empirical study I conducted a couple of years ago with colleagues at Linköping University (Hansson et al., 2021). I will illustrate and discuss the construction of visions in the context of the IPCC reports. Engaging STS concepts, I reveal aspects of how relevant science is estab-lished. A point of departure, which I share with many STS scholars, is that scientific knowledge is negotiated and influenced by social processes and often co-constructed with politics (van Beek et al., 2022; Schenuit, 2023). I want to stress that such a point of departure does not mean that the ambition is to discredit the scientific validity of the IPCC. On the contrary, it is unavoid-able that science is situated in a cultural and political context. The boundaries between what is and is not considered scientific knowledge are blurry. It must be negotiated, especially when the scientific object is complex, in our case future development of the global climate in interaction with global society. Those interactions are inherently characterized by deep uncertainties and unpredictable social dynamics. Nevertheless, scientific communities have been tasked with the herculean mission to compile and analyze current understandings of climate change. Further-more, they are called upon to convey structured and transparent scenarios or pathways on how various futures may unfold. The main tools for that are integrated assessment models (IAMs) (IPCC, 2018). Therefore, my ambition is that STS-informed analyses can help society to open up and also improve scientific efforts to understand the future.