Contrary to previous beliefs, the new IPCC report has shown us that the impacts of climate change are coming, and much sooner than anyone would have expected. As discussed in the articles, some of these consequences could be a “world of worsening food shortages and wildfires, and a mass die-off of coral reefs as soon as 2040”, illustrating a very bleak future (Davenport). The article also discusses how technological fixes can address these rising temperatures, when it states one solution could be “deploying carbon capture technology” to lower greenhouse gas emissions, or even building a “a wall to try to contain 10,000 and 20,000 and one million people” from rising flood waters (Davenport). But as we have learned in this class, these socio-technological fixes aren’t always effective, if they can even be employed in time. Not only do they ignore stopping emissions, but they are also cheap fixes that will allow the problems to continue, so I don’t believe there are socio-technological fixes that can be achieved to solve climate change.
To claim a science is too young to be trusted isn’t exactly the strongest argument. Not only does it ignore all the science and facts of climate change, it attacks the idea of climate change because climate contrarians can no longer deny the overwhelming support that the global climate is rising. Yes, science is subject to change overtime, but this can be said for any field. One of the main ideas of science is that science itself has room to change and grow as discipline, regardless of how old the specific discipline is. So, in my opinion, after reading Michael Reidy’s article and the articles form the IPCC, the statement that climate change is too young to be trusted isn’t factual or true.