Some of the questions raised in this column are addressed in FREE's forthcoming book, "Environmental Gore: A Constructive Response to Earth in the Balance."

THE global warming debate, like many environmental issues, is scientifically complex and highly emotional. Its complexity hinders informed debate and its emotionalism makes consensus elusive. Part of the problem is that climatology (the discipline dealing most directly with global climate issues) is a young and inexact science. But much of the problem can be traced to special interest's manipulation of the political process.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, many fundamental questions about global warming remain unanswered. Two crucial questions are: 1) Is significant human-induced global warming actually occurring? 2) If it is occurring, will the net effects be beneficial or harmful? In neither case is the answer an unambiguous "yes."

First, significant global warming may not be occurring. Certainly, the historical relationship between CO and temperature changes is ambiguous. Although levels of atmospheric CO have risen nearly 40 percent since the turn of the century, data from within the United States indicates no statistically significant increase in mean annual temperatures. In fact, between 1920 and 1987, there was a slight cooling trend.

Data also indicates that the rise in hemispheric temperature has been significantly less than expected given the increase in CO. And the region most likely to see temperature increases, the Arctic, has actually cooled since about l940.

Furthermore, the climate models used to predict warming depend on numerous unknowns. For example, we do not know how changes in cloud cover will affect global temperatures. Although the models agree that a warmer earth is likely to be a cloudier earth, it is unknown whether more clouds will cool the planet by reflecting sunlight or warm the planet by trapping re-radiated heat before it escapes into space. The net effect is unclear. Neither do the models explain the impact of temperature changes on polar ice and snow. A warmer climate may increase precipitation and produce more ice and snow in colder areas. This would increase the earth's albedo and cool the planet.

The empirical and theoretical uncertainties surrounding global warming counsel caution before making policy. Scientists are certainly being cautious; a Feb. 13, 1992 Gallup poll shows that most climate scientists doubt there has been any significant human-caused global warming to date.

But even if global warming does occur, it is unlikely to be a catastrophe. Robert Balling, director of the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University, and Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., conclude that doubling atmospheric CO is likely to produce an average global temperature increase of approximately 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit. This, increase is likely to be most significant at night, at high latitudes, and during the winter. It will not melt polar ice caps nor raise sea levels more than a few inches. There will not be super-hurricanes and there will not be endless summers of blazing temperatures.

In fact, there are many benefits associated with increased atmospheric CO. Doubling CO levels will favor bigger plants and may increase average crop yields by an estimated 33 percent. More atmospheric CO allows plants to grow using less water by reducing evapotranspiration - water evaporating after it is released from plants' pores. Precipitation and soil moisture may rise, and droughts may become less frequent.

Amidst the uncertainties, one thing is certain: Some groups benefit if the public believes global warming is a genuine crisis that can only be stopped with massive political mobilization. Irresponsible efforts by these groups fuel fears of widespread drought and crop failures, of super powerful hurricanes, of oceans engulfing coastal cities, and of blazing summer temperatures. How do they gain by hyping global warming?

For environmental groups, global warming is the ultimate issue. It affects everyone, it is dramatic and thus captures the public's attention, and it can only be solved by mobilizing government to impose regulations and develop programs. For those environmentalists hostile toward industrial civilization, global warming provides a rationale to impose their version of ecotopia. The threat of global warming gives license to those who seek to profit from crises.

Insurance companies may also gain from government efforts to control global warming. Insurers are motivated more by profits than ideology. If global warming causes increased hurricane damage or floods, they may lose immense amounts of money. Massive carbon taxes or regulation may halt warming and their losses. Since they as taxpayers will pay only a trivial portion of any regulatory bill, it is reasonable for them to seek such measures. If global warming never manifests, they lose little, but society loses a lot.

When making decisions and facing uncertainty, responsible people evaluate the most likely costs and benefits of alternative strategies. Given our current understanding, the changes wrought by global warming may well bring small costs or perhaps benefits. Massive prevention programs will surely be expensive, they will slow economic progress worldwide. Moreover, delaying action for a few years, while our understanding of climate change improves, is likely to lead to more prudent policies. If substantial warming is going to occur, a few years delay will make very little difference.

The global warming debate is far from settled. In deciding what to do, we should consider both the merits of the arguments and the possibility that they are being manipulated for hidden agendas. If we do not, we are likely to be stampeded into public policies with huge immediate costs and few if any benefits.