If you've been reading this section for a while, you're bound to have some doubts that global warming is a real scientific problem.

Last week, Review-Journal Publisher Sherman Frederick scoffed at the notion of global warming as a real problem by relegating it to another of his fantasies, this one at blaming President Bush -- or was it President Clinton? -- for the melting ice in his chest of beer.

Last year, columnist Vin Suprynowicz scoffed at global warming "loonies," and this newspaper's editorials have consistently criticized the science of global warming as "pure fantasy."

Even though I'm outnumbered in the Opinion office, science is on my side, and pesky data keep slipping into the real news section. On Thursday, it made it to Page 2B.

The Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee analyzed carbon dioxide emissions from the period 1960 to 2001 nationwide. The U.S. Public Interest Research Group reported the findings in a study called "The Carbon Boom," and noted that Nevada is second only to Alaska for its percentage growth in emissions.

The goal of the report is to encourage states to set limits on carbon dioxide and similar pollutants and reduce them by 20 percent within a decade and 80 percent by 2050.

As Nevada grows, it sends more stuff into the atmosphere, making it harder for sunlight to bounce back into space. In the 41-year period studied, Nevada's annual carbon dioxide emissions increased nearly tenfold, from 4.7 million metric tons to 44.1 million metric tons. Imagine what another five years of unprecedented population growth and development will do to our emissions total.

Those who criticize the report undoubtedly will do so because they don't like the goal. Similarly, those who criticize the outstanding documentary about Al Gore's global warming slide show do so because they dislike Gore or despise the Kyoto Accord.

Go ahead, argue that the United States should be one of only two developed nations that oppose Kyoto. Fine, argue that the Nevada Legislature should not go the way of California and require vehicles with greater fuel efficiency. But when you start discounting sound science, it's like you still believe the Earth is flat, the sun revolves around us and man and dinosaurs walked the planet at the same time.

"An Inconvenient Truth" is a call to arms for Nevada to become the nation's leader in renewable energy. The state's climatologist, Jeff Underwood, was quoted in a PIRG news release saying the report should serve as "a call to ensure that Nevada's contribution to global warming does not continue to rise."

I encourage everyone to see "An Inconvenient Truth" and then argue the science.

To be sure, Al Gore doesn't know that the Arctic Ocean will be free of ice by 2050. But that doesn't mean you and I should be any less alarmed about what is happening all around us. I want my children to be able to see the glacier at Montana's amazing Glacier National Park. It's disappearing, and it may be gone completely within a decade.

If nothing else, go see the film to see pictures and videos of the rapid changes throughout the planet. Then decide if you really believe the scientists are "loonies" when they suggest significant melting of Greenland or Antarctica will make the oceans rise.

The pro-business crowd can lament the policy ramifications all they want. Would they rather kiss Wall Street goodbye? The scientific modeling shows lower Manhattan under the ocean -- in my lifetime.

The fact that I voted for Al Gore in 2000 does not in any way make me some kind of Gore worshiper. In fact, what I found least compelling in Davis Guggenheim's documentary were the few times in which he put Gore on a pedestal.

But ignoring the 2000 election, or the Bush administration's science adviser, who doctored scientific reports to downplay or question global warming, would be ignoring the current "controversy" over climate change.

The only real controversy is drummed up by people who dislike Gore. The kind of people who laugh at him for claiming he "invented the Internet." What Gore actually told Wolf Blitzer -- "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet" -- was beautifully manipulated by Bush in 2000. The guys who invented the Internet say Gore was the politician who helped make their work possible. So, he did "take the initiative" to "create" the technology.

He's also taking this initiative because it takes someone of his stature -- someone who did get the most popular votes in the 2000 presidential race -- to get what many consider a "back burner" issue noticed.

As the credits roll at the end of the film, written advice scrolls on the screen about how the audience can write a different ending to the disaster occurring outside the theater. When I saw the film Wednesday afternoon at the Suncoast, two people behind me erupted in applause when the film told people to vote for people who will make global warming a priority.

The film is persuasive, but not, as some suggest, a 90-minute Democratic Party infomercial for the 2008 election. That's still two years away, and Gore says he's not running. So if you are one of the few people still supporting the president, you can probably still learn a lot from the film. If you believe God made the Earth and all of us, then you should work to save the planet and all of its creatures.

You can make a change. See the film. You can do things at home. We can do things in the community and Nevada can make changes to reduce the emissions that trap the sun's heat.

I'm 35. I think it's cool to tell my son that we used to think there were nine planets in the solar system. But I don't want to have to tell my grandkids there used to be seven continents.

Erin Neff's column runs Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday. You can reach her at 387-2906, or by e-mail at eneff@reviewjournal.com.