Other Answers (5)

• Yikes, they chose the slickest presenter, and the one that had no science behind his position. What a nutty idea he was proposing!
  
  I think this plays a role as well:
  
  %26quot;A new study has found that when it comes to U.S. media coverage of global warming , superficial balance—telling %26quot;both%26quot; sides of the story—can actually be a form of informational bias.%26quot;
  
  Journalistic Balance as Global Warming Bias
  Creating controversy where science finds consensus
  http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1978
  
  %26quot;An example of issues sometimes handled with false balance are pseudoscience... issues sometimes handled with false balance are Holocaust denial, Global Warming, and Intelligent Design creationism.%26quot;
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balan...
  
  Media False Balancing Allowed Extreme Views to be Treated Same as Scientific Consensus
  http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/Gl...
• I might just be that some people know how to think on their own.
• This could be it.
  
  Also in the Era of TV and newspaper sound bites, the opinions of skeptics who lie and distort information are seen as equally valid as those from most veteran researcher who has spent years in the trenches.
• Very possibly so. I think the scariest opinion feeds the media. People like getting scared, too. Scary movie, or warm fuzzy feelings? Which becomes the blockbuster?
• Possibly...
  
  I%26#039;m also of the opinion that they like to show both the %26#039;for%26#039; and %26#039;against%26#039; arguments, which necessarily gives the sceptics far more air time than their pitiful contingent warrants.