After reading the IPCC’s report on the severe and imminent consequences of global warming, I thought of several avenues regarding technological fixes that address rising temperatures, beginning with fixes that address the direct consequences of global warming, such as increased severity of drought and dying coral reefs. Obviously, however, these fixes would fall under Tim LeCain’s category of delaying techno fixes and possibly others, as they follow a narrow, directed focus rather than digging towards the ultimate cause. If we were to guide technological fixes towards this ultimate cause, though, then these fixes could focus on the major sources of carbon emissions by developing technologies that transform carbon emissions into another profitable byproduct. Taking this approach would require a broad, more wholistic view as to avoid a cascading effect that causes other environmental damages. As for the timeframe of these fixes, I believe that until the world comes to the consensus that global warming is affecting important aspects of daily life, nothing concrete and effective will be implemented to at least help mitigate the consequences of global warming.
To argue the legitimacy of claims that climate science is too young to be reliable, I would first start by conceding that our first confirmations of greenhouse effects and their impact on the atmosphere were only a mere 150 years ago by John Tyndall (Michael Reidy, p. 13). So, it is easy to assume that 150 years of climate research on greenhouse gases is simply not enough time to conclude that global warming is in full effect. However, improvements in geological technology along with modern climate models clearly suggest otherwise. Certainly, we have enough information dating back thousands of years to indicate that the warming of the earth has most likely not occurred at this rapid of a pace ever, meaning that humans and their carbon emissions must be the primary cause. Thus, there is more than information to undercut any claim that climate science is too young to hold any reliability.
Logan, I enjoyed your discussion on the implications of carbon emissions on the progression of climate change. An unfortunate number of resolutions or technological fixes are geared toward keeping the status quo and postponing the issue for another day without any further attempt to decrease the carbon emissions and reach a net zero impact. This is not entirely due to the scientists performing the research, but more so the political views that see climate change as an opinion rather than a looming fact. Without a societal shift in views toward climate change, it will be an increasingly difficult uphill battle to reach the IPCC’s goal for carbon emissions. If the public were more educated about the history of climate change and those who studied it, such as Tyndall, I feel they would be more inclined to accept the fact rather than arguing it is too young of a science to be certain.