Remember post 9/11 when there was a certain faction in U.S. society that said people who didn’t wear a flag pin on their lapels were un-American? That analogy may be appropriate for the debate on global warming–or rather the lack of debate. People who did not buy into the theory that global warming is manmade were virtually shunned by all “thinking” society.

So now an inconvenient truth of another sort appears to be in the making as a result of leaked documents and hacked emails written by scientists at Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the U.K., the most influential and most-oft quoted institution on the global warming front.

How, society–maybe even the U.S. Congress–is probing a little deeper. It’s a firestorm that is gathering air—did scientists at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia prevent data contrary to their views from leaking out to the public? Did they blackball opposing scientific analysis and present flawed data to support their theories on global warming?

One email string entitled Harry Read Me has been particularly worrisome because it implies that the data that supports global warming by manmade causes is severely flawed.

On RealClimate, a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists, recently posted a letter from Peter Laut, professor (emeritus) of physics at The Technical University of Denmark and former scientific advisor on climate change for The Danish Energy Agency.

I’ll share the first few paragraphs here–Laut makes a compelling argument:

At the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December 2009 the nations of the world will discuss possible ways to slow down global climate change. The main goal will be to organize a coordinated reduction of man‐made greenhouse gas emissions. With all nations contributing according to their ability.

But: Is global warming perhaps caused by the sun?

An important question concerns the physical cause of global warming. Is it primarily caused by changes in solar activity or by man‐made greenhouse gasses? The answer has enormous consequences for the way mankind should react. If the dominant cause for global warming is solar activity, then there is no reason for mankind to waste resources in trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And no reason to have the climate conference in Copenhagen. If, however, the dominant cause is man‐made greenhouse gasses, then a reduction of emissions may be absolutely necessary in order to prevent a global climate catastrophe.

The overwhelming majority of scientists, represented by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has for many years collected and analyzed observational data and carried out model simulations in order to resolve this question and has arrived at the conclusion that the results overwhelmingly point at the increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as the cause. There are practically no observations which render it probable that solar influences play more than a minor role.

Now, in spite of the almost unanimous message from the world’s scientific community, there is a small group of scientists who try to promote the solar theory. They are supported by a massive network of journalists, film makers, TV producers, authors, politicians and grass roots. This group is centered around two Copenhagen climatologists, Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis‐Christensen.

The real crime here is that there has been no opportunity for an open debate. That is not to say that the planet does not need a good scrubbing down or that non-sustainable resources should not be protected and used with the utmost care. What it does say is that as the planet warms, we should devote our limited financial, intellectual and governmental resources to technology and policies that will actually make a difference.

On his way to Oslo to pick up the Nobel Peace Prize, President Obama will attend the Copenhagen global climate summit on Dec. 9, according to anonymous White House officials. While the rest of the world has been clamoring for substantive U.S. energy legislation, the president will not be able to deliver on that front. What he is expected to do is deliver at the summer is a U.S. target for reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

That expected target is a 17% drop in greenhouse gases below 2005 levels by 2020.

According to the Los Angeles Times:

White House officials said the decision to attend came after productive climate discussions between Obama and the heads of China and India, two developing nations whose participation is seen as critical to any successful effort to negotiate an agreement.

Those discussions left the president optimistic that his presence in Copenhagen could seal a meaningful - though not legally binding - climate deal, meeting the standard that Obama previously set for his attendance at the summit, the officials said.

Widespread awareness of global warming is often attributed to former United States Vice President Al Gore’s movie “Inconvenient Truth”.

The 2006 documentary makes the argument that if the human activities that cause global warming go unchecked, then in 10 years time the end result will be a major catastrophe involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves.

Despite distribution that included 50,000 free DVDs in the U.S. and $49 million at the box office, the inconvenient truth today may be that fewer Americans believe there is solid evidence of global warming. That’s the conclusion of the latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Sept. 30 through Oct. 4 among 1,500 adults reached on cell phones and landlines.

According to the survey, just 57% of respondents today say there is solid evidence of rising global temperatures compared with 71% who held that same belief in April 2008. Over the same period, there has been a comparable decline in the proportion of Americans who say global temperatures are rising as a result of human activity, such as burning fossil fuels. Just 36% say that currently, down from 47% last year.

Fewer than four-in-ten (36%) now say global warming is mostly caused by human activity such as burning fossil fuels, while 16% say it is occurring mostly because of natural environmental patterns.

And while the GOP recently made headlines by boycotting a U.S. Senate to begin marketing up the democratic sponsored Kerry-Boxer climate bill, even across the political spectrum fewer Americans are convinced that solid evidence of global warming exists.

The trend was most prevalent among independents, of which only 53% now see solid evidence of global warming, compared with 75% in April 2008. Republicans, who already were highly skeptical of the evidence of global warming, according to the Pew study, have become even more so. Just 35% of Republicans now see solid evidence of rising global temperatures, down from 49% in 2008 and 62% in 2007. Democrats have also backed off in their belief of solid evidence to 75% today, down from 83% last year.

Amid growing skepticism, the survey still finds more support than opposition for a policy to set limits on carbon emissions. Half of Americans favor setting limits on carbon emissions and making companies pay for their emissions, even if this may lead to higher energy prices; 39% oppose imposing limits on carbon emissions under these circumstances.

There are two dueling pieces of energy legislation in Congress: the Waxman-Markey energy bill, widely known as the “cap-and-trade” bill, introduced in May of this year; and the Kerry-Boxer clean energy bill, proposed at the end of September. Cap-and-trade would allow businesses to trade or buy carbon credits if they exceed specified limits.

However, a third option, announced last week by Senators John Kerry, Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham, aimed at finding middle ground and developing a piece of legislation that could pass the Senate with 60 votes, would encompass a cap-and-trade program but also include some measures important to Republicans such as strengthening nuclear power in America.

With the Health Care Reform slowing winding its way through Congress, experts say the prospects for the passage of major energy legislation this year are dim.

Here’s an excerpt from a Washington Post story today entitled “Climate bill faces hurdles in Senate”.

The climate-change bill that has been moving slowly through the Senate will face a stark political reality when it emerges for committee debate on Tuesday: With Democrats deeply divided on the issue, unless some Republican lawmakers risk the backlash for signing on to the legislation, there is almost no hope for passage.

The story drew a heated response from NREI Editor-in-Chief Matt Valley. I share his remarks here:

From my point of view, I think the majority of Americans who follow this issue are highly skeptical about a governmental plan that calls for the issuance of permits for greenhouse gas emissions, and they should be. The rules of cap-and-trade as currently proposed seem somewhat arbitrary and capricious from a business person’s point of view. The timing for this controversial idea is particularly bad given the weak state of the economy.

Just as important, supporters of cap-and-trade admit that it’s going to initially raise utility bills in an effort to curb Americans’ consumption of energy. The average Joe is in no mood to be part of a grand experiment that leaves him paying more for utilities, not now. It’s basically political suicide for many legislators who are not on the far left to get behind this measure, particularly in energy-producing states.

I personally do not buy into the idea that it’s inevitable cap and trade will pass now or at some point in the near future. Rather, I believe it’s much more likely that legislators will be forced to go back to the drawing board, draft something much less onerous that business and industry can live with, and which won’t be called “cap and trade.”

Those are my two cents.