The issues outlined in the IPCC articles could potentially be addressed in a number of ways using technological fixes. The impact of higher temperatures on the environment could be lessened by installing systems to restore damaged ecosystems to near former health, or to protect individual ecosystems from the effects of that increase, or by counteracting that increase before it has a chance to do any more damage. However, as of yet a suitable fix has not been found, and as more time goes by and more damage accrues the number of options grows ever more limited. For a successful fix to be implemented, it would likely have to take place some time in the next couple of decades given the information presented by the articles, a relatively short frame of time from a historical perspective. Given this, and the fact that such a fix would by necessity have to be an effective socio-technological one with more benefits than drawbacks for it to do anything save by us a little more time, I feel that it is unlikely that such a fix will be found. I don’t think this ideal fix can be achieved, but a lesser one might be doable, if only to by more time for a proper solution to be developed.
The articles, both IPCC and Professor Reidy’s work, illustrate that the study of climate has been around for well over a century, if not in the same form as today. Whether its age has any say in its legitimacy is a subject for its own debate, but to claim it is in its infancy would be an incomplete assessment. In the form it occupies today, yes it is fairly young, but the seeds of today’s organizations were planted as long ago as the 1800’s.