Rising temperatures would greatly impact the environment and cause a series of negative effects. This change could potentially be solved by a variety of techno-fixes. If scientists focused their time and energy on climate change solutions, techo-fixes could be a great ally in lessening the amount of pollution created. While this is already a work in progress, techno-fixes are a problem because they are often expensive and may result in pollution during the production of these fixes. A socio-technological fix could be applied if global actions are taken to reduce the amount of pollution in all aspects. This seems unlikely, but is a possibility.
This statement is untrue, as there is enough time and evidence data to show that climate change has been going on for a very long time. Long enough to be studied and to determine the effects that it has caused and what it may eventually lead to. Climate change is an old science and a new science as it speeds up or changes due to technology. It is far from its infancy and can be examined and studied significantly.

4 thoughts on “Sci-Cli”

  1. I think you did a good job giving a brief response to the questions here, but I think it would be good to dig a little deep and use more specific examples about the readings. Yes we could use techno-fixes, but what specific issues need to be addressed and what technologies could help with this. Yes socio-techno-fixes can be implemented, but what shift in view needs to take place for these ideas to be more effective? In addition, what specifically points to the fact that “the statement is untrue”? Who was doing the research and what did they find?

  2. You gave a very brief explanation of what the articles referenced and talked about but I agree with Ellie in that you should’ve delved deeper into the articles and pulled information from them to support your statements. I agree that the statement that climate change is too young of a science is incorrect, but I think you could’ve again referenced different aspects from the readings to support this claim. Although you make good points, there is a lack of support for your claims from the reading, making it difficult to believe. Next time I would just add quotes or information from the article to strengthen your argument.

  3. You gave a good explanation but I feel you should have put more thought and more personal opinions to it to make it more in depth. What are the techno-fixes for? I feel that would be a good detail to have in there to have the readers feel more connected to what you are saying. I agree that climate change should have been studied for a long time but i feel that climate change techno-fixes such as temperature and pollution are possible but beyond the reach of what we can do with the research that has been done on them.

  4. Hey Sydney! Even though your post was short it still was a very good explanation! And I agree as well that the statement is untrue. Climate study has been around for a good while now. And as the technology has become more advanced, more people have become concerned about it. We need to start taking action now if we want to limit climate change. Good job!

Comments are closed.