Does global warming keep you up at night? Do you worry that rising sea levels may turn Wilmington into Atlantis? Have you traded in your Hummer for a hybrid and replaced your old appliances with fuel-efficient models?

Do you feel a moral obligation to warn family and friends about this impending disaster?

If so, I've got two words for you: Zip it! Your passionate proselytizing is poisoning your cause. Your wake-up call is forcing folks to hit the snooze button.

A recent survey of 1,000 Americans found that as a person's understanding of global warming rises, his concern about the issue falls. Researchers at Texas A&M University also found that the more information a person has about global warming, the less responsible he feels for it.

The idea that informed people would respond to doomsday with a shrug is, well, shocking. It challenges the conventional wisdom that education is the key to consciousness. It defies the hope of environmentalists who believe that people will care once they understand.

In fact, the survey reports, "the effects of information ... are exactly the opposite of what were expected."

What we have here is the proverbial riddle wrapped in an enigma. The mystery is compounded by the survey's second surprising finding: "Respondents who showed a great deal of confidence that scientists understand global warming and climate change showed significantly less concern for the risks of global warming than did those who have lower trust in scientists."

Huh? The message from most scientists is pretty dire. They're not envisioning a happy future. If you accept their warnings, how can your response be "What, me worry?"

The answer is that scientists, journalists and other concerned parties may have done too good a job in describing the enormity of the problem.

Melting snow caps, submerged cities and arid plains -- the apocalyptic images that drive Al Gore's Oscar-winning picture "An Inconvenient Truth" and alarming books such as "Field Notes From a Catastrophe: Man, Nature, and Climate Change" by Elizabeth Kolbert -- pack a punch. In fact, their blows are so powerful that they've left many people feeling weak and overwhelmed. People think: The problem is so big and I am so small -- nothing I do can make it any worse; nothing I do can make it any better.

In this context, the survey's findings make perfect sense. As the researchers note: "Global warming is an extreme collective action dilemma, with the actions of one person having a negligible effect in the aggregate. Informed persons appear to realize this objective fact. Therefore, informed persons can be highly concerned and reasonably pessimistic about their ability to change climate outcomes."

That explanation is logical, but it is also incomplete. The belief that your actions don't matter is convenient: Because you are inconsequential, so are your actions.

So enjoy the freedom of the ant!

Why not add 2,000 square feet to your house? Why not tour America in a gas-guzzling RV? Why not do whatever you want because it doesn't matter -- all the while praying that scientists will find a way to save us.

Problem is, the hill breaks down when all the ants do what they want.

This view might be dismissed as cold cynicism if the people who feel so powerless individually were clamoring for collective action.

That is not happening. Global warming is barely a side issue in this year's presidential race, which is focused on Iraq, the economy and health care.

If you accept Al Gore's claim that climate change is the great challenge of our age, that immediate action is required to stave off catastrophe, the silence on the campaign trail is stunning.

It puts the lie to journalist Michael Specter's claim in the Feb. 25 issue of The New Yorker that "possessing an excessive carbon footprint is rapidly becoming the modern equivalent of wearing a scarlet letter."

Maybe someday -- we are taking baby steps on the issue -- but not now. Individually and collectively, Americans have not yet mounted a coherent and effective response to the challenges of climate change.

The Texas researchers illuminate the connection between reality and ideas. How we think about the world shapes our actions. Their survey suggests that environmentalists' efforts to rally the public through apocalyptic visions may be counterproductive.

Obviously, the issue should not be sugar-coated. The voices of responsible scientists who believe we are approaching the cliff must be heard.

But because the goal is inspiring action, environmentalists ought to stress arguments that reduce the throw-up-your-hands feeling of weakness that beleaguer so many informed people. Instead of trumpeting global doom, they should emphasize the small things that each of us can do to make a difference.

They should remind us that we matter. That we can control our destiny. That the way to start changing the world is by changing ourselves.

That's something to tell your friends and shout from the rooftops.