Yet another perspective comes from an Alaskan named Caleb Pungowiyi. He is not a scientist but someone whose lifeline is the sea ice of the Arctic coastline. When I met him, he talked about what the loss of ice meant for him and his community—not only are they losing land, but fisherman and hunters have to travel farther away from home as the animal life is also affected. He concluded: “We are resilient people and we adjust readily to change but if that change is too rapid, too disruptive, it causes social chaos, hardship, and suffering.”

That is the message for the world community as we move forward. The issue of climate change is not just one of a few degrees. Climate patterns determine fresh water availability and therefore agriculture and other resources worldwide. History shows that people will follow resources and, often tragically, fight and die for them too. Admittedly, that is a worst-case scenario. But it is time to act.

First, the United States invests about US$1.7 billion per year in climate change research, more than the rest of the world combined. But the clock is still ticking. The United States can, should, and must move much more rapidly to educate the world about the coming changes to the climate and their impact on life on Earth. The United States should lead, and the rest of the world community should follow suit.

Second, when the United States says “the rest of the world community,” it must mean it. The United States must include not only the developed and developing countries but also the least developed countries who, at a minimum, must participate in data analysis and modeling. If they understand the global science and the consequential impact of climate change, they should be more receptive to working with the United States on techniques for mitigation and adaptation. We know with certainty that our atmosphere, land, and oceans are an integrated system. Therefore, our research and mitigation strategies must be integrated as well.

Finally, research so far has been piecemeal and modeling efforts are fragmented and uneven. We have learned enough to know that both nature and human civilization are impacting the climate system. The difficulty lies in distinguishing human-induced variability from natural variability. Thus, we are left with policymakers debating and debunking two competing models as if each extreme is the only possibility. The consequences would be grave if we were locked into one single-point solution with no alternative should it not work, or worse, were flat-out wrong.

For the time being, to whatever extent possible, let us take the politics out of the science. Let us put our energy where it would be most useful—into more research. Let us use the latest technologies, space-based and other, to develop more models—competing models and broader models, peer-reviewed on a worldwide basis.

The reason we must do this goes back to the parable of the blind men and the elephant. Each came up with a different scenario based upon his individual experience. But what if the blind men consulted with one another? What if they joined hands, asked questions, and compared observations? Perhaps if they put the parts together they would have understood the whole. Let us not turn a blind eye to our planet and make the same mistake.