Sticking to the Facts on Climate Change and National Security: Scientists Under Questioning for Reports
By: Lauren Farber
The Wall Street Journal reports on criticism of a statement in a 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which warned of rapid “glacial retreat” in the Himalayas. According to one portion of the report now under question by the UN, it was predicted that the Himalayan glaciers are in danger of disappearing by the year 2035. Although no one disputes the evidence of glacial depletion in the region, researchers are now examining how exactly data were used to reach this conclusion. According to Dr. J Graham Cogley of Trent University in Ontario, a glaciologist who contributed to the 2007 IPCC report, although the Himalayan glaciers are receding, they are not experiencing the effects of climate change at the fastest rate, nor is it likely true that they will disappear entirely by 2035. This incident is further compounded by the controversy in England over hacked emails between American and British climatologists that publicized the conspiracy to withhold or manipulate scientific to combat global warming skeptics. Although opposition to the United States adopting policies to limit the impact of climate change on future generations has been vehement, scientists must resist the temptation to frame this issue in alarmist terms. There is no need to exaggerate the unpredictable threat that climate change poses to national security, and to do so only invites criticism that detracts from progress being made on a political front. As Andrew Revkin of The New York Times wrote, “The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument.” The concern now is what to do about climate change, and our reliance on guidance from the scientific community requires accuracy and honesty. ASP wrote more about this topic here.
