o Finally, we had the “above the fray” crowd, who chose not to take sides in the debate, but altruistically reminded us that whether or not there is global warming and whether or not mankind has caused it, we should all do everything we can to preserve our embattled environment. You could almost hear them plaintively asking, “Can't we all just get along?”

Whichever camp you fall into, however, it behooves all of us to make sense of an issue that potentially has significant consequences for the entire world–as well as for the insurance industry, which is being hammered by wind-related disaster losses. With that in mind, I went in search of some facts to inform the debate, while completely ignoring the political falderal that has accompanied it.

Much of what I am about to present comes from a Web site hosted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The site had been updated on March 29, 2007, as of this writing.

First, the mainstream media tell us that human activity since the Industrial Revolution has significantly increased the concentration of “greenhouse gases” in our atmosphere. Such gases–including water vapor and carbon dioxide–serve a useful function by trapping the sun's heat and keeping the planet habitable–the “greenhouse effect.”

Some scientists, however, fear that a large buildup of such gases caused by human activity could eventually result in additional warming over the next century that would foster disastrous changes–for example, by melting Arctic ice and raising the sea level worldwide to the point where coastal communities could be destroyed.

NOAA confirms that greenhouse gas levels are indeed significantly higher, and that the average global surface temperature has risen 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit in the last 25 years.

Whether or not the increase in greenhouse gases has caused this temperature rise is debatable, however, and the extent to which such a temperature increase–if it continues–would affect the Earth also is not clear.

Warming trends on Earth can be affected by a number of factors, including El Ni?o activity, volcanic eruptions, positions and temperatures of ocean currents, and solar weather activity, to name a few. With regard to the climatic effects of solar output in particular, NOAA notes that our “understanding is minimal.”

Another puzzling wrinkle of the warming trend is that it has not been uniform across the globe, says NOAA, meaning that some geographic areas do not seem to have experienced increased temperatures. (Almost makes you want to change the phrase to “regional warming.”)

For example, while Arctic sea ice has definitely decreased since 1979, sea ice in Antarctica has shown little change, “or even a slight increase,” says NOAA.

Timing is also important. For example, NOAA reports that annual snow cover has been “below average” in the Northern Hemisphere since 1987, and has decreased by about 10 percent since 1966, primarily because of decreased spring and summer snowfall over the Eurasian and North American continents.

On the other hand, the extent of winter and autumn snow cover has shown “no significant trend” for the Northern Hemisphere over the same period, the NOAA site reports.

In the end, predictions of global warming and its effects are based on computer models–projections based on current trends and conditions. Such models must not only take into account the multiple factors already mentioned, but also trends such as population growth, economic growth and energy efficiency.

Depending on how scientists and others project such things, we may experience “a wide range of future climates,” says NOAA.

It's also important to remember here that we are trying to predict the weather for the next century. Often, however, it seems we're lucky if we can accurately predict the weather for the next week.

Given the instability of so many of the relevant factors, then, it is really difficult to side with the “pure” scientists on global warming, although they may ultimately be correct. It is also difficult to be certain that the naysayers are right, although their view may also prove to be more accurate.

As for the “above the fray” group, they may be right about being kind to our environment, but they may also be wrong about the ultimate impact, or lack of impact, mankind's actions will have.

Someone once told me, “Nothing is ever as bad as it seems, or as good as it seems.” My suspicion is that 100 years from now, that's the way the global warming issue will be viewed, as the results–or lack of same–become apparent.

Remember that as the year 2000 dawned, many technologists were predicting dire consequences for computer systems unprepared for the Y2K date change. While popular media would later pooh-pooh the danger, the fact is that some large systems were adversely affected, while others were spared because they were adequately prepared. In the end, it wasn't a disaster, but neither was it a hoax.

When it comes to the idea of global warming, education, research and a healthy dose of skepticism are the best course for an industry like insurance that–much like the scientists we talked about here–tries to predict future risks and to be prepared for them.