A piece about global warming on '60 Minutes' last night ended with the obligatory Bush bashing. The global warming story, at least to the media, only seems to have value in a political context, which leads one to conlude that they don't really believe it themselves. The media has tacitly conceded that the story can't stand on its own merit.
I saw the same piece arguing that Polar Bears are in danger of extinction.
My view is that these shows have pitifully little science and huge amounts of misleading images. They showed icebergs calving and melting. Since this happens all the time, the only point of the images is to scare those who are least well positioned to ask serious questions about the quality of the science before being conned into spending huge amounts of money on as yet to be proven problem.
I recall hearing of the consequences of the polar ice melting in 1963. That debate was overtaken by nuclear winter fears. It is still unclear if the polar caps are melting in ways that are appreciably different from prior climate cycles. Given th eamount of government funding that is up for grabs I would prefer a more unequivocal set of scientific findings before voting for an expensive solution ahead of an as-yet-to-be defined problem.