Here's a quick quiz on global warming. How high are ocean waves expected to rise within the next twenty years? Is global warming man-made? Is it a true threat?
The answers vary, depending who you ask.
This should not be the case. Although answers don't always match perfectly in science, we need to have a fair, honest debate in this country on global warming - a debate that appears to be a work in progress.
Over the past several years, the public, even those in the scientific community, have heard the story from only one group: those who generally contend global warming is real and its effects will be utterly devastating unless we take steps now to reverse them.
This side, with the help of the mainstream media, has monopolized the dialogue on global warming and touted its talking points.
Many scientists came out publicly to cite scientific data, publish articles and give talks. The earth's temperature was surely increasing.
Just a year ago, Time Magazine had a huge piece on global warming, with the cover warning, "Be worried. Be very worried."
Then there were the countless photos, one that was polar bears stranded on floating blocks of ice. The ice caps were surely melting.
And in less than two weeks, former Vice President Al Gore will be on campus to show and discuss some slides from his Oscar winning film, "An Inconvenient Truth."
To many, global warming is real and its threat dangerous. But the dialogue is starting to expand, and the other side in this debate - there is one - has the chance to tell a very different story.
Not all scientists buy into global warming. There are hundreds of scientists, some prominent, who either argue against global warming entirely, the drastic effects it supposedly will have or whether it's even something to worry about in the first place.
They're starting to be noticed by the media and the public, and scientific journals are including articles that discuss different reasons for climate change and what we should expect to see.
Many of these particular scientists were shunned by others in their fields if they offered a dissenting viewpoint, such as global warming is neither man-made nor a threat. To believe in global warming and to live eco-friendly became a lifestyle statement.
You can probably recall Hollywood award shows when the stars swapped limousines for green Prius cars.
The message was that there is only one acceptable opinion on the matter.
Up until this point, even former Vice President Gore, a leading figure on this issue, has been unwilling to publicly debate anyone.
In an article for The Boston Globe, Ellen Goodman stated that "global warming deniers are now on par with Holocaust deniers."
Students in some public schools in Vermont are getting lessons on global warming - but they're only learning "the earth is getting hotter" side of the story. Sounds like indoctrination.
Soon enough, some of our kids are going to be like those in Great Britain - where one in four reportedly have trouble sleeping at night due to fears of what humans are doing to their own planet.
This is a shame, because a debate is needed and a debate can only be conducted when you have both sides willing to participate, and there is an assurance that one side is not shouting down or censoring the other.
Fortunately, the stigma of having a dissenting perspective on global warming is finally wearing off. Many people are beginning to hear the full range of opinions on this important subject.
But if there is going to be the depth of public support that will be necessary for any real progress on the issue, then regardless of which side you take on the matter, there needs to be a true debate.
Reach the reporter at: hilary.wade@asu.edu.
