Unpredictable. Unfocused. Just like life.

I wonder, in today's climate, would any network dare air a special suggesting that global warming was not entirely caused by humans? Is there any room left at all for the possibility that this theory might not be absolutely true?

The Discovery Channel on Sunday is airing a Tom Brokaw special, “Global Warming: What You Need to Know”, which once again posits that "the majority of scientists agree":

“Now, a vast majority of those scientists believe global warming is real, and it's having a dangerous impact on the planet we inhabit,” reports Brokaw, the former NBC News anchor.

And if a scientist happens to disagree, they've been paid off: Brokaw does ask one of the many scientists interviewed why “a persistent minority” refuses to believe that humans are playing a major role in the warming of the Earth. Some, says the researcher, just find it unbelievable, and “there are some people who have a financial interest in not believing.”

The clearest statement I've seen about global warming comes from Molten Thought:

What you need to know is this:

We don't know what is happening. We don't know what the weather will be like next week, much less 100 years from now. We don't know what causes climate change. We don't know how to control the weather.

The same article points to a dissenting Wall Street Journal op-ed by Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, that lists these conclusions:

So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points.

First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists--especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a "moral" crusade.

Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce--if we're lucky.

Much is made of the fact that recent years have been warmer than those that preceded them. I just heard on my local news that the temperature was cooler this year than last. If warmer years prove global warming, then do cooler years prove that the danger has passed? Well, only an idiot would predict 100 years into the future with only one or two data points, now wouldn't they?

It is clear that the earth's climate is changing. I would certainly welcome some serious debate about what is happening. Claiming that the majority of scientists agree and skeptics are "on the take" does nothing to foster any understanding about the situation, and frankly assumes that average person is just too dumb to understand what politicians, anchormen, and celebrities do.