Andrew C. Revkin/ The New York Times

On Tuesday, the final day of the Heartland Institute’s conference examining whether global warming was ever a crisis, there was a fascinating moment in one session when the discussion shifted from questioning warming to assessing humanity’s limited energy choices.

Climate debate aside, there appeared to be no skepticism at all about the need for an ambitious energy quest and burst of technological innovation — basically in line with the “second industrial revolution” called for by Energy Secretary Steven Chu, who was a target at other sessions for recent statements on climate risks.

The moment came during a session pairing up Don Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, and Michael Jungbauer, a state senator and water-resources specialist from Minnesota.

Stuart Isett for The New York Times

Much of what they said meshed with the overall theme of the meeting, which organizers said was aimed at proving that the recent consensus on dangerous human-caused global warming was shaped more by politics and passion than data.

Dr. Easterbrook spoke of his studies of solar activity and ocean cycles and his prediction that a decades-long global cooling spell was coming, deeper than the one in the middle of the 20th century. [UPDATE, 3/16: Josh Willis of NASA rejects Dr. Easterbrook’s arguments in a comment.] Mr. Jungbauer gave a talk and slide presentation that he said were aimed at providing ammunition for anyone in the policy arena seeking to counter visions of catastrophic global warming pushed by liberal campaigners. “Know your competitors’ message,” he said, flipping a slide with photos of prominent climate scientists and campaigners. (Mr. Jungbauer has also been posting climate talks on YouTube.)

Dr. Easterbrook, in laying out the dangers of cold spells, noted that the world doesn’t have sufficient energy sources to get through such a period, particularly with the human population heading toward 9 billion. “We want to reduce pollution, increase efficiency, decrease dependence on foreign oil,” he said in a question and answer session. “The difficulty I see is greater demands and fewer resources.”

Setting aside his short-term cooling projections, Dr. Easterbrook’s assessment of looming risks related to energy appears to be substantially aligned with that of, for example, John Holdren, President Obama’s nominee for science adviser (whose confirmation is still being held up by one or more senators).

Keep in mind that their prescriptions for driving the needed change differ markedly. But they share a vision of a stark energy gap, and the need for big changes in energy policy and technology.

Such moments of consensus are rarely visible given how the heated fight over climate and energy policy is mainly shaped, particularly in Washington, as a political tug of war.

While taking questions, Mr. Jungbauer, who commutes in a hybrid sedan or on a bicycle when he can, also agreed that without new energy policies and an aggressive push for better energy technologies, progress was in peril. He said that the consensus on common goals on energy is often obscured by the rancorous fight over related climate and taxation policies.

“There are extremists on both sides,” Mr. Jungbauer said. Extremists on the conservative side, he said, say there’s no problem at all, while “on the other side they say, ‘we want to control your life” by raising energy costs through a cap or tax.

So in the end, the epic struggle over global warming, at its root, remains a struggle over how to drive energy innovation.

How much change can be propelled from the top down, by pressing companies and consumers with rising costs for energy choices that come with emissions of greenhouse gases? How much can come from the bottom up, with policies and investments that invigorate innovation?

Here’s some useful related background on one approach to energy innovation. Here’s a defense of a carbon cap as a driver of change. And here’s a call-out to young people to join the innovation generation.