IPCC response

Technological fixes have been developed or a least research to aid the world in curbing climate change and keeping it from overshooting 1.5 degrees celsius and keep it from reaching 2 degrees celsius.  The report the IPCC came up with states that keeping the climate change from rising of an average of 1.5 degrees celsius and below 2 degrees celsius. They also give evidence that should the average world temperature rise above 2 degrees celsius the world would experience a cataclysmic change without allowing time for humans and ecosystems to adapt.  They also show how even a 1.5 degree celsius would cause terrible damage however they recognize that the world is already on that trajectory and the changes necessary to prevent it would not be able to be implemented in time or by everyone. At this point the IPCC is acting as a damage control team. Technological fixes involved in helping curb climate change include many that would require extreme shifts in economy and that simply will not happen with the entrenched power of the fossil fuel interest.  Moving from a fossil fuel based economy to a sustainable energy source would require a massive shift in economic structure but also in public opinion as you cannot force people into buying a new product. Other technological fixes involve machines or methods that remove CO2 emissions from the air, but the IPCC report states how these are not a feasible option and that major changes in human behavior need to be realized if there is to be any hope of preventing climate change at a rate that would be extremely detrimental.  


Professor Reidy’s article brings to life John Tyndall, a Victorian era scientist who was the first to claim that changes in the composition to the earth’s atmosphere could lead to climate change.  To hear people claiming that the science of climate change is still in its infancy is a bit nuanced because it is indeed younger by several thousand years that the science of astrology and certainly younger than chemistry and physics.  However to discredit the work that has already been done in the field just because it has not been around as long as other studies is a bit childish. The scientific study of climate change still uses the same scientific methods as the other studies and require proof and evidence to prove a hypothesis true or at least a theory.  It is not some pseudoscience that can just be discredited because it has not been around as long as other sciences.


1 thought on “IPCC response”

  1. I agree that for the IPCC, what they are doing now is mostly damage control and most of it relies on technological fixes. The likelihood that the entire world changes its attitude and energy consumption in time is unrealistic. Some of the technological fixes were quite expensive, in that case that private companies were unable to pay for the devices, only the government to pay for these fixes, which again seemed quite unrealistic. For society in change there would be a huge push to get everybody on the same page. For the second part about climate science, you state that though its younger and its childish to dismiss reports, especially since they use the same scientific method. For me, I took it as that climate science is a lot older than some people believe, the first person to look at the natural greenhouse effect lived over two hundred years ago, a lot of our understanding of “older” sciences have occurred during this time-frame.

Comments are closed.