The problem here is scientific proof. You can't prove that human activity is affecting the climate unless you have a control study of an identical planet which has no human activity to see if it would have happened anyway.
In the absence of the Magratheans, scientists just have to make a few assumptions based on observed facts, which they report appropriately in the relevant scientific journal. Then journalists read an extract or summary of the article, treat half of what they read as gospel truth, and ignore the other half because they don't understand it, and assume that it won't sell.
Television executives then read these papers and commission 'documentaries' in order to sell advertising space to the highest bidder. Having no understanding of the science behind the topic, or indeed any science beyond 'switching on the kettle makes the water hot', these executives then pile pressure on to the program makers to make the program as sensationalist as possible, because it will make eye-catching trailers, and the advertising space will be worth more. The program makers, opting to sacrifice journalistic integrity for the cash-cow that is 'selling it to the Yanks too', add in lots of flashy graphics and dramatic shots of dry riverbeds and/or salt-flats so there'll be lots of good material for the trailers.
By the time this process is complete, there's usually not much room left for science, so the makers slap the researcher until he/she finds out who wrote the original journal article. They send a cameraman off with a list of questions to meet the scientist, usually with a brief to 'try and keep it short'. The scientist is delighted that the mainstream media considers his/her work important enough to be included in the program, and happily prattles on to the camera for half-an-hour about their work, which is usually (but not always) incomplete.
This half-hour of scientific gold is taken back to the editing suite, where it is reduced to four 20-second sound-bites. These are usually used to introduce some flashy graphics, created by someone who couldn't spot the difference between a research lab and the Tardis set used in Doctor Who. All references to the fact that the scientist's study will be completed in six years time are deemed superfluous, boring, and likely to undermine the general tone of the program.
At the end of it all you get 45 minutes of glamour and glitz interspersed with less science than advertising (and jarringly disjointed sections where the Yanks will add more advertising), which bears as much resemblance to the journal article that spawned the whole thing as a tadpole does to a frog.
If you want to know about the climate, or the environment in general, start with something like Nature, or New Scientist, and follow the references in there. Don't watch anything that has advertising space to sell - which sadly includes most of the BBC's output these days. Damn that Yankee dollar.
Anyone who gets their facts from television can eat my coat.
This signature has been produced using traditional writing methods on behalf of The Campaign For Real Slogans.
To enjoy this signature at its best, adjust your monitor's resolution to 1024x768.