[geedy]

David Wallace wells isn't your best source. His work has been criticized for misrepresenting the science by many reputable climate scientists, many of which are easy to find online. It is clear in his response to being called too alarmist that he chooses to stretch the truth.

Whether or not his tactic is ethical is worth debate perhaps, but whether his picture is reflective of what climate scientists believe is an answered question (its not). The situation is bad, but we need not become defeatist, lest we give up entirely.

[NeedMoreTea]

Some climate scientists criticised him, an apparently similar number have expressed support.

> "It is clear in his response to being called too alarmist that he chooses to stretch the truth"

I think you misrepresent. He's made it clear he's a journalist who made effort to understand and present the science. There were a few mistakes as notably pointed out by Mann. Hardly "choosing to stretch the truth".

Given the IPCC's consistently conservative view, that encourages a too little, too late response, I would rather an excessively pessimistic view pushed us to respond "too soon". After all if some tipping points are passed, bringing it back from the brink will be just about impossible... If we overreact we get clean energy sooner.

Events in the two years since seem to reinforce the pessimistic view. Sea level rise tracks the worst case IPCC estimates. Etc.

[hanniabu]

> being called too alarmist

I've never heard of any of his material, but is it really possibly to be too alarmist in our current state? I mean honestly, most of the world doesn't understands the magnitude and gravity of the events taking place and the runaway train that we're on.

[geedy]

If we take on defeatist language, we will be defeated. Scaring people into inaction by accepting defeat isn't a productive path forward.