Talk:The Uninhabitable Earth

Untitled
I find this page to be incredibly biased as is. I sincerely apologize if talkpages are not the right places to bring this up, but the wifi is too awful to do anything else. I am not very knowledgable about the article, "The Uninhabitable Earth," but it sounds as if a global warming skeptic wrote the entire wiki. It's a little revolting. Skallywag777 (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)Skallywag777

book
This 2017 article is a book now in 2019. Victor Grigas (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Translations
Are there translations out there of the article? -- Amtiss, SNAFU ? 17:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Interview notes
I listened to the interview between Mann and Wallace-Wells held at NYU. After listening to this and reading the Climate Feedback entry, I think the reception section could be made somewhat more balanced. I also suggest dividing it into "general audience" and "expert" subsections, since the reception was rather different in those two categories. My notes with rough timestamps follow:

10:00-12:30 Wallace-Wells began writing the story because he felt it hadn't been addressed in public discourse. Influenced by the Yale survey, he wanted to make people shift from thinking of climate as something that affects other people to one that can affect them.

21:00 Wallace-Wells felt that well-educated people in the West had a good sense of the median scenario, but that they did not have a good sense of what more extreme scenarios might look like.

25:30-28:00 Mann says he is concerned primarily with the "doomist" framing, while the content was largely good. He especially identifies the title as a problem, which has influenced other writers to proclaim predestined, helpless expectations of great change within a decade. Mann feels this doomist framing can itself lead to similar paralysis as outright denialism. Even worse, "Some messengers seem co-opted." (Mann clarifies that Wallace-Wells is not in this category, but that the fans/context around Wallace-Well's article is worrying).

31:40-32:40 Wallace-Wells argues that there is a much larger danger of complacency than of turning off people via fear.

33:30 "Steve Schneider was like the Carl Sagan of our field," says Mann. (consider adding that to Dr. Schneider's article)

40:20 Wallance-Wells says "one should not form one's whole vision of climate change based on this piece." Rather, the piece adds additional context to the far side of the risk curve in a way Wallace-Wells argues is missed by current scientific communication

52:00-54:00 Mann says, "We are much more in agreement than in disagreement." Communicating worst-case scenarios is very important, and not done often enough by scientists and scientific communicators.

57:00 Wallance-Wells says the story was the most-visited story of all time at New York. Significant positive reader feedback. More mixed expert feedback. Michael Mann was one of the first among experts to comment on the piece.

1:01:30-1:04:00 WW: The line-by-line citations were planned before-hand. Moderator: why did you respond to the story, Dr. Mann? Mann: Often hard to have public discussions. My initial concerns were attacked, so I had to add greater details. But there is actually not such a large distance between WW's position and mine. But one particular issue was the methane release argument, for which the framing seemed wrong. Moderator: mostly stylistic differences Wallance-Wells: If he were to do this over again, "I would not use methane release from permafrost."

Jlevi (talk) 01:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Merge
Book and article together? Seems an obvious merge target to me. Greenbound (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)