Well, they certainly trotted out the usual skeptics: Richard Lindzen -- one of a very small number of skeptical actual climate scientists, although it seems that he's rather skeptical by personality, Bjorn Lomborg a political scientist who used to say that global warming couldn't and shouldn't be fixed and has switched to saying that only new tech can fix it, and Richard Muller, who is I think the most serious of those interviewed as skeptics, and who has come around somewhat after doing studies confirming accuracy of the temperature record.

They also didn't do a great job of presenting the scientific understandings. There are reasons why the vast majority of climate scientists say that global warming is certainly man made, is very likely to continue, will be hard to stop, and presents a high risk of very deleterious and long lasting consequences, but those reasons went largely un-examined by this documentary.

The best interview by far though was with Ben Goldacre (at 48m9s), at which point the narrator finally showed a little insight: "Television programs like this one presenting both sides of the argument evenly might actually be part of the problem."

Still, it was interesting to illuminate how it is that intelligent people can still claim to be skeptical about the existence or importance of anthropogenic global warming. The question I would ask skeptics is: if somehow you became convinced that unchecked human caused global warming will have serious consequences, what response would you advocate?