In the movie ?The Day After Tomorrow?, which is playing in Bermuda this week, New York City is flooded by a tidal wave, then frozen by an ice age.

Canada simply becomes a frozen wasteland, and presumably Bermuda is either submerged in the high seas or became a hill in the middle of a frozen ocean. Scientists ? including those at the Bermuda Biological Station ? are dubious about the movie?s ?science?.

But all acknowledge that climate change is a major concern and welcome the fact that the movie, along with other news in the media ? including the beginning of a series in today ? will focus public attention, at least for a while, on the issue.

Bermuda, of course, has to worry more about climate change, and global warming in particular, than most places. If seas consistently rose, then parts of Bermuda disappear.

And if climate change causes more unpredictable and violent weather patterns, then Bermuda will have to brace for more hurricanes like Fabian, not fewer.

Beyond some agreement that the world is getting warmer, there is very little consensus on how quickly this is occurring, whether it is a long term phenomena or a blip and whether it can be reversed by anti-pollution steps and the like. Preventative measures are likely to be inordinately expensive,while ignoring the risk could be disastrous.

?There will be a big payback in the long run from acting now to slow climate change,? said Robert Corell, chairman of an eight-nation study showing a thaw of the Arctic is already threatening the Inuits and wildlife from polar bears to whales.

?Many people don?t see it that way because they have a very short-term agenda: ?I want to be elected next term, I want to make my money in the next five years?,? he told Reuters news agency. Others believe climate change fears are exaggerated and see scant benefit in spending vast sums on measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions such as those set out in the UN?s Kyoto Protocol.

Bjorn Lomborg, controversial author of ?The Sceptical Environmentalist?, said the world could spend cash more wisely on piping drinking water in poor nations, for instance, than on choking off emissions from cars and factories. ?The world is probably talking of spending $50-$150 billion a year on Kyoto,? he told Reuters. ?It will do fairly little good 100 years from now.? He says climate change fears are exaggerated.

But Swiss Re, the world?s second largest reinsurer, has warned the cost of natural disasters, aggravated by climate change, could double to an annual $150 billion in ten years.

Such a sum could even dent the US economy worth about $10 trillion.

Many economists say the costs of Kyoto, a tiny first step by rich nations to rein in global warming by rich nations, will be manageable. Kyoto aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12.

But shifts to renewable energies such as solar or wind power would have spin-offs like easing pollution, especially in cities. That would cut health spending and days lost at work due to respiratory illnesses.

What should be clear is that taking steps to reduce pollution makes sense anyway, as does reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which have resulted in rises in skin cancer, especially in the Southern Hemisphere.

If that slows down global warming, then it is all to the better.