(A frog squats in a pot of cool water, oblivious to the experiment in which he is about to participate. A flame is ignited under the cauldron . . .)

On Nov. 8, 2004, the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment results were issued after a comprehensive four-year study by an international team of 300 scientists. The report, largely ignored by the media, confirmed the suspicion that human-caused global warming is increasing far more rapidly than predicted, arguably bringing these ramifications:

Average winter temperatures in the upper Northern Hemisphere are likely to increase up to 14 degrees over the next 100 years;

Polar sea ice will decrease by 50 percent before the end of the century;

Warming over Greenland could eventually lead to a global sea level increase of about 23 feet.

(Slowly, the temperature in the pot rises . . . the frog appears restless but makes no effort to jump out . . .)

Conjoined with the ACIA report is similar data recently offered by the Union of Concerned Scientists:

Warming in the 20th century was greater than at any time during the past 400-600 years;

Seven of the 10 warmest years in the 20th century occurred in the 1990s;

Global sea levels have risen three times faster in the past 100 years than in the previous 3,000 years.

The 1997 Kyoto Protocol, designed to reduce the greenhouse-gas emissions largely responsible for global warming, has been ratified by 126 nations, including the members of the European Union, Japan, Canada and Russia. The United States, the world’s largest contributor to fossil-fuel pollution, opted out of the protocol, claiming its emissions restrictions would disproportionately burden the country with job losses and higher energy costs.

(The frog’s eyes appear to be bulging, and he is struggling slightly to breathe . . . warm mist is beginning to rise from the pot . . .)

Perhaps the Kyoto treaty would require the United States to make some economic sacrifices. On the flip side, just imagine the financial hardships Americans will experience if global warming brings about the consequences predicted by many scientists.

Ask a farmer in Dallas County how his corn or soybean crop would be affected by an average summer temperature increase of 10 to 14 degrees. Ask any other Iowa business person whether radical increases in world temperatures and precipitation would increase their overhead expenses, including energy costs.

Think of the issue this way: Des Moines is home to some of the nation’s leading insurance companies, which sell policies to protect businesses and individuals against events that can have disastrous consequences. The insured parties are willing to pay healthy premiums each year to protect against an unlikely catastrophic loss.

As the evidence of global warming continues to accumulate, shouldn’t we regard some economic sacrifices as appropriate “premium” payments to ensure against the threat of a future environmental disaster? As the world’s technology and pollution leader, can the United States morally and practically justify its decision to simply “pick up its football and go home,” particularly when neither the president nor Congress has advanced any meaningful plan to address the globe’s environmental quagmire?

Take note: There will be no nation-state “winners” if this environmental game ends poorly. If we continue to delay, if we guess wrong or simply ignore the mounting wealth of scientific data identifying the threats associated with global warming, chances are we won’t get a second chance.

(The water is bubbling . . . the frog isn’t moving.)

Welcome to the pot we call planet Earth.

Greg Naylor is an attorney and partner with the Whitfield & Eddy PLC law firm.