"There is a rather large consensus among them that Global Warming and Global Cooling are cyclical."

Unfortunately Warren, this is incorrect. There is consensus that global climate change (media types call it Global Warming) is *not* cyclical and that humans are contributing. I would like to see the peer reviewed scientists who disagree, other than Gray who is resistant to anything but direct obs research and Lindzen who is a smart scientist but highly contrarian in general.

I don't think ignorance is bliss. Bliss was when the Weather Channel stuck to the weather instead of getting into politics. I was concerned about global warming and what we can do to reverse the trend. I checked into the claims on both sides and found that there are hacks out there on each side of the issue which makes me wonder what is their motivation.
The phrase "follow the money" isn't just an empty statement, unfortunately.
"Everyone" is selling books, making films, getting paid for speeches and on and on.

The "99.9%" of the real scientists ED refers to are the same group that, back in the 70's, was warning us about global cooling and the impending ice age just around the corner.

My "quest" has been to find scientists who aren't selling books or collecting money from far right or far left "pressure groups", and are not politically motivated. Thankfully there are some of them out there. There is a rather large consensus among them that Global Warming and Global Cooling are cyclical. There have been "several" ice ages after all, and to take a "small snapshot in time" and then manipulate the facts for personal gain is shameful thing to do.

Unfortunately, Al Gore is one of them. His "movie" made baseless statements that even some of his supporters backed away from when questioned.

If you follow the money trail it, fortunately, ends up in the Global Warming community. "Fortunately" because I know now that we are NOT doomed to see both coast lines end up 100' underwater. I think it is safer to say that "knowledge is bliss". Ignorance is...just that.
The 8,000 year old "event" Sion talks about...what was the cause? Automobile emissions? Pollution? Sion said it sounded "counter-intuitive"...EXACTLY.
That's what I mean...we should stop believing this stuff without verifying it.

Check out, as in go to the library, Al Gore's book and fact check it. WORK at it and find the unbiased data to back up the claims he made. He needs money, and publicity, for his next political move.
I will not vote for him this time!

It could happen tomorrow is really great stuff. They were on top of Katrina before it happened - the "lost episode" was a superb lesson in how cutting edge climate science can prepare us for major disasters with all that detailed knowledge and models with computers and all those high powered weather instruments. Kinda freaky was the precision of the predictions. I would prefer to continue the interesting documentaries on TV to get people passionate about cutting edge climate science. BTW Jim Kantouri is simply the greatest TV meteorologist in the USA, and storm stories rocks! That's the weather channel. These guys are onto the weather like no other. I can't wait for the climate code to get some detailed information about global warming. Al Gore was ok but he was more into the political implications rather than the hard science details. They already did global warming stuff on the weather channel and guess what: global warming could cause an ice age! Sounds counter-intuitive but there was the "8,000 year event" (8,000 years ago) that caused a rapid ice age when the earth was warming up like the present. Just shows that global warming the current trend could set off processes that cause cooling in the future. The moral is that global warming may not necessarily equal a hotter world, but it will cause catastrophic climate change, eg, ice age!

So in Brent and Katie's world, we would ignore what 99.9% of real (not industry paid) scientists have been warning about about for decades.

Ignorance is must be bliss.

Yeah Katie is right.

I would add that the Weather Channel used to be neutral and gave only facts (which I liked). Now it has a political agenda. It sounds like this show will start with the premise that humans caused small temp increases and here is why you should believe it. That is not how news should be.

Also Weather Channel overhypes storms to get ratings. Category 1 hurricanes get way too much hype. It's disappointing what WC has become.

As a meteorologist working in local TV news (and a huge TV junkie), I just wanted tell your readers how disappointed many broadcast meteorologists are with the Weather Channel. That innovative network once provided viewers with all of the current weather information they could digest. You could tune in at any time to see the local radar, or video from tornado damage 1500 miles away. But now they're going to fill another hour of the day with hypothetical situations and scare tactics about "what could happen tomorrow!" It's just disappointing to weather lovers like myself and others.