The Uninhabitable Earth | New York Magazine

JoAnnChateau.com - Must-Read Link
Written by JoAnn Chateau

Not to depress you or anything, but the climate crisis is worse than you think. David Wallace-Wells provides a skillfully written, well-researched, comprehensive and realistic view of the Earth’s near-future, and ours…

“…It is, I promise, worse than you think. If your anxiety about global warming is dominated by fears of sea-level rise, you are barely scratching the surface of what terrors are possible, even within the lifetime of a teenager today…

No matter how well-informed you are, you are surely not alarmed enough. Over the past decades, our culture has gone apocalyptic with zombie movies and Mad Max dystopias, perhaps the collective result of displaced climate anxiety, and yet when it comes to contemplating real-world warming dangers, we suffer from an incredible failure of imagination…

This article is the result of dozens of interviews and exchanges with climatologists and researchers in related fields and reflects hundreds of scientific papers on the subject of climate change… It is unlikely that all of these warming scenarios will be fully realized, largely because the devastation along the way will shake our complacency. But those scenarios, and not the present climate, are the baseline. In fact, they are our schedule…”

David Wallace-Wells

READ MORE: The Uninhabitable Earth | New York Magazine

Be awake. Be aware. Be alert.


About the author

JoAnn Chateau

JoAnn Chateau likes progressive politics and loves the canines. She sometimes writes fiction about Chester (the Alpha Bichon) and his friends -- with a dash of humor and dab of Poli-Sci. JoAnn's views and insights are tinted by her past profession in Counseling, Christian theological studies, and Library and Information Science training. Retired now, JoAnn enjoys the creative life.


    • Yes, more than ever, it seems like End Times. Deniers… may we assume the Christian deniers expect to be Raptured before suffering the full effects of climate change?

  • Something very intriguing is going on here, JoAnn. Wallace-Wells’ article brought an internal debate within science and the environmental community to the surface. I call it the “don’t alarm the public crowd” versus the “gloom and doomsayers.” Several of the former wrote countering editorials immediately after its publication. One of them, who happens to blog on WordPress, got very upset with me some time ago for posting an exposé on an IPCC dossier containing world food supply projections based on climate change (my statistical analysis of the projections was quite dire). This blogger was so upset that he moderated a comment I posted on his site which did nothing more than cite those IPCC projections. I’m still curious as to why he would do that especially since he didn’t even try to refute those projections. Anyway, this same blogger along with others in the don’t-alarm-the-public-crowd responded similarly to the Wallace-Wells article. Instead of detailing specifically why his scientific conclusions were wrong, they issued general statements referring to them as “exaggerated” and “inaccurate;” however, they also described them as “possible.”

%d bloggers like this: