Photo credit: Denis Felikson
Max Holmes (via 60 Minutes)
In Siberia, a father-son scientist team wants to recreate an ancient ecosystem to help fight climate change. On the March 31 edition of 60 Minutes on CBS, WHRC Deputy Director Dr. Max Holmes was featured discussing the ambitious ideas behind what Sergey and Nikita Zimov call “Pleistocene Park.”
Holmes has worked with the Zimovs for years and has made multiple visits to conduct research at their station north of the Arctic Circle. As climate change rapidly warms the Arctic, Woods Hole Research Center scientists study thawing permafrost and assess the emissions that come from these vast landscapes.
60 Minutes journalist Scott Pelley asked Max what he thought about Sergey Zimov’s attempt to keep permafrost frozen.
“Fascinating theory,” Holmes said. “I’m fascinated by the science that can be done to see if it’s correct. But he’s pursuing this. We need to think about solutions.”
Watch the episode below (Pleistocene Park segment starts at 15:55):
Statement from Woodwell Climate Research Center (formerly Woodwell Climate Research Center) President Dr. Philip Duffy:
“The Trump Administration’s decision to convene a committee that will examine whether climate change is a national security threat appears to be a politically motivated attempt to deny the reality of climate change. The issue is already well understood by federal government scientists, and the Defense Department and nation’s intelligence agencies already know that has serious implications for national security.
If President Trump does move ahead with this effort, the [Woodwell Climate Research Center] calls on the White House to subject the committee’s findings to peer review by the National Academies of Sciences.
To conduct such an investigation without independent, external peer review would render the findings meaningless. To make policy based on such a finding would be reckless and irresponsible.
The National Climate Assessment – issued last November – was vetted by 13 Federal agencies, reviewed by external experts and finally reviewed by the National Academies of Sciences. Given the profile of this new committee, and the important questions of policy that are at stake, the findings of this new committee should be subject to a review process at least as rigorous.”