I suppose it's good news that climate change deniers in the U.S. are increasingly marginalized.

We may actually get a president next January who has some inkling of reality, a component of leadership, but it is probably also true that public understanding of climate change is only marginally better. The issue is rising slowly in importance according to the various polls but is still relatively abstract to most people.

Back in December I read an article in The Observer UK entitled "Green fatigue leads to fear of backlash over climate change." Granted, Europeans have a better grasp of the subject in general, but there is still plenty of ambivalence among the British public.

According to the article the British have accepted the reality that global warming is not a "left-wing conspiracy," but still want to know what they are supposed to do about it.

They are well aware that their own government has not been able to do much about halting rising carbon dioxide emissions, yet, they know of the Australian drought, fires in Greece and California and of course the devastating flood in England last summer--but still not the smoking gun.

In the U.S. I've seen a number of comments recently on various web sites that express a kind of tired resignation toward climate change: yeah, it's been cold and hot in the past ... who are we humans to think we can do anything about it ... I can't be worried ... etc., etc.....

Some thirty years ago I was lucky enough to have spent a couple of weeks sailing around the Galapagos Islands, some 600 miles off the coast of Ecuador. These islands back in the early 19th century helped inspire Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

As the islands lie right on the equator, the sun would race to the horizon every evening and you would be plunged back in time into pitch darkness and see a night sky that few people in a modern 20th century world were fortunate enough to gaze up at.

On one particular night perhaps six or seven dolphins decided to dart around the boat, stirring up tiny sea creatures that emitted a phosphorescent glow when disturbed.

No Disney production or rock concert could have created anything to compare with the light show I witnessed that evening on a small sailboat moored just off the Galapagos Islands.

Will nature ultimately have its way? Of course it will. But do we have any responsibility as humans--other than to feel just too overwhelmed by it all? We sure as hell do have some responsibility.

Climate scientists have generally been reluctant or have avoided getting involved in so-called debates with the deniers, because these gatherings more often than not have had nothing to do with science.

The Heartland Institute, for example, has fronted numerous groups including the tobacco industry. Heartland has actually offered financial incentives for articles disputing anthropogenic climate change. They have a clear agenda, which does not include genuine scientific debates.

The deniers are fond of saying that there is no real consensus on climate change. Oh, but there is a broad consensus. Dozens and dozens of academies and institutions specializing in climate science and related fields have endorsed the 3rd assessment report issued by the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (What the politicians finally decide to do with the science is something else.)

The broad scientific community is not debating whether or not changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations modify the greenhouse effect. They are not debating whether or not current warming trends are outside the range of variability. They are not debating whether or not sea levels have risen over the last century.

They are debating, sometimes quite vigorously, whether or not microbes with less temperature-sensitive enzymes could be acclimatizing to long-term increases in temperature. How much CO2 and methane will be released if widespread permafrost melting occurs?

Can feedbacks in the system amplify polar warming more than previously thought? What impact might cloud cover have had in explaining glaciation in the Antarctic that lasted for about 200,000 years during the Ecocene and Cretaceous periods?

There have been many "urban" legends spread by the denial industry, the most recent one I've heard being that the warming is due to the sun getting hotter. Organizations like the World Radiation Center and the Max Planck Institute have been studying this for years.

The short answer-response is that for the last 30 years the sun's temperature has not changed (when satellites were first used), while the earth's temperature has been rising the fastest during this period.

A vocal warming skeptic told me to watch a video entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle." I learned that climate science is an "angry science," whatever that means. Scientists depend on the "hoax" to keep their jobs. They have an interest in "fomenting panic." I was informed that there is nothing unusual about current climate change. What I didn't learn, however, was a great deal of science.

The video was put out by the Nicene Council, whose name was familiar; the Roman Emperor Constantine convened the Nicene Council in 325 A.D., as he was concerned that Christian ideologues might harm the stability of the Empire if their religious disagreements got out of hand.

The NiceneCouncildotcom turns out to be a purveyor of creationist literature and seemingly regards environmentalists as akin to the fellow with the horns carrying the pitchfork. To see the video go to Swindle

Finally, a short family quiz: Do you have children that are juniors or seniors in high school and who are planning on going to college? If so, here are three questions for them.
1.Can your child give you a succinct explanation of the "scientific method"?
2.Can your child give you a brief explanation of the "greenhouse effect"?
3.Can your child give you three examples of the difference between a fact and an opinion?

If they cannot answer all three, then you ought to pay a visit to your local high school and find out what they're teaching--in all subjects. Regardless, everyone, adult and child, should be able to answer number three correctly. It matters a lot. Of course, make sure you know the answers before you ask the questions.