I don't think anyone seriously debates the existence of a global warming phenomenon (it has been independently measured in a number of ways). The debate is more about whether humans are the primary or sole cause of this warming. A sad state of affairs exists here - science has been overrun by "humans are causing warming". Indeed, that is a theory, and it may very well be the right one, but at the moment any scientist that publishes research suggesting other causes, such as solar radiation variance or natural cycles of warming and cooling, they are ridiculed and considered immediately not worth answering. This is not how science should be done. We should keep all our options open here. We do know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, there is not a clear correlation between increases in CO2 emissions and warming - due to the complexity of the systems involved in climatology, it is very difficult if not impossible to, with enough certainty, model such a correlation. What we should be working on is not blaming one effect or another, but trying to engineer solutions for reducing the global climate. Novel approaches to leaching excess greenhouse gas from the atmosphere have been proposed, some ultimately quite feasible if one could demonstrate their environmental safety. Assuming we did cause the warming with our emissions, and that was more a side effect of our energy generating technologies, it stands to reason that we can reverse the effects of this side effect with a little investment of money and brainpower.

First they all have to get their stories straight. Then the press can decide whether or not they believe anything is real!