No, New York Mag: Climate change won't

make the Earth uninhabitable by 2100

Andrew Friedman, in this article of 2017 talks about his position about the controversial
topic of the climate change. His position defends the importance of the science in order to
know more about our world, therefore he talks about his limits and more specifically he
things that’s science cannot determine or guess if humans will be able to survive or not at
the end of the century.

He also criticises the magazine story made by David Wallace-Wells on the New York
Magazine called “The Uninhabitable Earth”. in which he was talking about the end of the
world and claiming for the support of different scientist to support the veracity of his
opinion. David Wallace was considering the more pessimistic and worst projections about
the climate change. As the story tends to exaggerate some facts and the science may be
wrong sometimes, Friedman claimed to the public opinion to have a criticized eye on this
magazine.

During this last years, scientist of the world had started to have the same ideas about some
central findings. Such as, the problem of the arising level of the sea, that is going to be more
severe now that it was before. Also, the temperature may arise at some levels that the life of
some animals and plants are going to be in danger in certain places. They even have the
hypothesis of the difficulties for humans to live in parts of Middle East and Asia.

Even if those scientist hypotheses are scary, they also argue that we are still at time to
manage the necessary changes in order to avert the worst consequences of the global
warming. So, they try to incentivise to act individually at home and to encourage leaders to
act instead of keeping paralysed due to the fear.

Wallace-wells complains about the fact that people are not well-informed and are not alarm
enough. And even if sometimes people are quite informed the biggest constraint is that they
will not be alarmed enough to act, people suffer from a failure of imagination.

Friedman is not the only journalist that criticise the piece of Wallace, for example, the
climate scientist Michael Mann claim that the job of a journalist is not to serve a dose of
hope but needs to be accurate and realistic and in the piece Wallace talks about the fact that
the earth will be unhabituated at the end of the century, however he doesn’t have the
necessary evidences to demonstrate it. He generally overestimates some of the science
statements such as the release of frozen methan or the false statement that satellite data
shows that the globe has been warming more than twice as fast as scientist though since
1998.

Another critic is also made by Andrew Dessler, a climate researcher that claims about the
inaccuracies of the piece. He says that even if what Wallace describes could happened it
would be in absolutely in the worst scenario and with a really low probability and assuming
that humans do not take any effort into account to fight against the climate change.
Despite all of this, Wallace has an optimistic view about the attitude of many climate
scientist. He says that even if they don’t have a such pessimistic view as him they know
about the eminent necessity to cut emissions and to adapt to global warming in order to
mitigate some impacts. They know that todays choices are going to affect profoundly our
future.

As Hayoa sayed, we do not have to act in a desperate way, but in a reseanoble considering
the scientist solutions to the gravest threats of climate change.

To finish the article talks about the optimistic view of the overall scientist, as they take into
account that people work to fight against problems, society can surprise positively as for
example with the fast shift of renewables or with the Paris Climate Agreement

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-
humans.html?utm_campaign=nym&utm_medium=s1&utm_source=tw