And now a word from the “97 percent.”

In this case, the number refers to the percentage of climatologists who not only believe in climate change but say human activity is “very likely” a cause in erratic weather patterns.

The world’s top climate scientists also point out that weather disasters are striking more often, manifesting themselves as hurricanes, tropical storms and floods.

People in the mid-Hudson Valley may start paying more attention, given the fact that we had virtually no winter weather this year and considering how hot it has been this spring.

But these are just small snapshots, and scientists caution that climate change isn’t necessarily going to be a noticeable increase in temperature as much as erratic conditions, as witnessed by last October’s freak snowstorm before Halloween.

Unfortunately, global warming is not an issue that is likely to draw much attention in the presidential campaign this year.

President Barack Obama would rather avoid getting tarred with another “liberal” label, while Mitt Romney essentially shrugs off climate change as if there is nothing anyone can do about it.

But that is simply not the case.

Ironically, Democratic and Republican leaders conceptually have agreed on solutions to curbing emissions, including those causing global warming. But the leaders of the two political parties haven’t agreed at the same time.

At one point, Republicans, including then-President George H.W. Bush, supported cap-and-trade policies, such as the one that has effectively been used to curb acid rain in the Catskills and Adirondacks.

Such a policy enables companies to buy allowances to cover their emissions. Companies reducing theirs are able to sell their excess allowances — as long as overall goals are being met.

Because it is a market-based approach, it used to get considerable support among Republicans. But things have changed. Many of its leaders have moved so far to the right that they would rather deny global warming exists — and, certainly if it does, human behavior isn’t causing any of it, they maintain.

Meanwhile, Obama has been far too tepid on the issue. So, in fact, has the federal Environmental Protection Agency. The president and EPA have been reluctant to move forward without congressional support, even though court rulings have given them the power to do so. The U.S. Supreme Court has said several times that curbing emissions falls within the purview of the EPA under the Clean Air Act.

The EPA has adopted stricter emissions standards for new cars and trucks — steps that will be phased in during the next few years and help cut carbon emissions that cause greenhouse gases.

But, as is, states such as New York are doing more to combat the problem. They have started regional compacts — mini cap-and-trade programs — with initial success, but a larger solution is needed.

Global warming is a complex, international problem, and the United States has a responsibility to lead. It makes up about 5 percent of the world’s population but creates about 25 percent of its greenhouse gases.

No one wants to see higher energy costs, but all costs have to be considered. The warmer and erratic weather brings with it the higher risk of rising sea levels and flooding, as well as wildfires inland.

All of these will take financial tolls and jeopardize lives.

That’s a discussion that shouldn’t be ignored this presidential election, as the overwhelming number of scientists — not pundits but scientists — would surely tell you.

— The Poughkeepsie (N.Y.) Journal