Ron, you are being disingenuous here. Under the guise of promoting "dissent" you are in fact interesting in promoting global warming dissent. As you say, you are agnostic on the subject ("no strong position either way"), and so do not see anything particularly wrong with presenting the views of global warming deniers.
Here's another example. Should news about geography cover the views of people who believe (or at least argue) that the world is flat? It is, after all, a dissenting view, and we certainly don't hear much about it in the mainstream news. And flat earthers exist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society). Why not have one of them on the news?
Well, the reason, Ron, is that they are cranks. And despite your own agnosticism, global warming deniers are just a dwindling band of cranks, notwithstanding the odd conversion.
Should the news cover cranks? Or, should they only cover the cranks whose views you, Ron, don't have strong feelings about, one way or the other?
Here's a harder one.
Should news stories on biology, geology, genes, dinosaurs, or our pre-human ancestors give more or less equal weight to creationists who believe the earth is only about 6000 years old?
The case in favor is exactly the same, Ron, as your case for global warming deniers. There are quite a few people who are creationists. There are many scientists, even biologists, who are creationists. I bet we could even find a scientist here or there who was once a Darwinist but "changed his mind" and became a creationist. Surely, such a scientist has views on the development of life that are worthy of coverage--after all *he changed his mind!!*.
How do you feel about creationism, Ron. No strong feelings either way?
