PHOTO BY ISTOCK/JAN WILL

While Congress continues to consider climate legislation (see Gore Says this is the Year for Action on Climate), some scientists and scholars — believe it or not — still debate about whether or not the global warming issue is real. There is even a government website (the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works) that debates the topic, as if it’s something that still needs to be debated over. Climate Debate Daily also lists arguments for and against the idea of global warming. My personal favorite response to the debate comes from the Canada Free Press: “They’ve given carbon dioxide (CO2) a bad name and it is now being hanged by draconian and completely unnecessary legislation.”

It’s hard to believe that there are still people out there that won’t grasp the fact that humans can and do have an affect on our environment. Yes, the Inhofe EPW Press Blog has been able to find 650 international scientists to speak out against global warming. But many of these scientists aren’t credible on the climate topic, like this blog on Grist magazine quite logically shows, by comparing the credibility of these skeptical scientists to the credibility of just any doctor on the treatment of cancer. It’s always best to find the answers to problems from actual experts. Environmental scientists prove again and again that global warming is manmade, like the evidence in this Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report that says “There is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming.” Or like the evidence in this RealClimate article.

But whether you do or don’t “believe” in global warming, it’s a good idea to research both sides of the debate, especially if you’ve found yourself lost when trying to gather up a not-too-condescending response to co-workers, friends or even — in my case — to family at Christmas dinner. That way, the next time the issue comes up, the evidence can prevail and the debate will be finished in time for you to enjoy your post-break-room or post-dinner cup of coffee.

This week, Congress debated an auto industry bailout bill of $25 billion. The executives of the Big Three Automakers – Ford, Chrysler and General Motors – testified at congressional hearings (after spending tens-of-thousands of dollars to fly in on their luxury private jets, one of which cost $36 million) and asked for federal support.

Reactions to the Detroit automakers’ requests have been mixed, from support to flat-out opposition.

The Civil Society Institute (the organization behind 40MPG.org and CLEAN) sent out an action alert at the beginning of the lame-duck session, asking its supporters to contact members of Congress and President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team in support of a Green Auto Bailout. The goal being to have conditions on a bailout that would require the car manufactures to develop and produce more hybrids, clean diesels and fuel-efficient vehicles, as well as drop their lawsuits against states with higher global warming emissions standards, such as California, Vermont, Rhode Island and New Mexico.

“If taxpayers are going to be put at risk by guaranteeing new loans, then any such new help should be conditioned on the U.S. car companies ending their campaign to frustrate state-level efforts to clean up car and light-truck emissions that cause global warming,” said 40MPG.org founder Pam Solo. “Further, Congress should insist that every penny of the $25 billion in new loan guarantees that Detroit is seeking to building the cars of tomorrow, not the gas-guzzling dinosaurs of yesterday.”

Although Congress is leaving for Thanksgiving break, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said they may call Congress back in session at the beginning of next month to continue work on the automaker bailout bill and other economic issues before the next holiday break.

40MPG and CLEAN are still encouraging people to sign and e-mail the action letters, since the issue is still on the table.

There is some support for environmental preconditions in Congress, but others argue clean energy restrictions might make the bill more difficult to pass. It is estimated that if even one American automaker goes under, more than 2 million jobs will be lost in 2009.

Here are some links to other articles on this topic:

MSNBC

CNN

The New York Times

Fox News