Dear John Stossel Vs. Al Gore

After your October 19, 2007, "Give Me a Break" segment "Man vs. Nature" on 20/20, I was confused and disappointed. More appropriately titled "John Stossel vs. Al Gore," your investigation essentially raised three questions: is global warming really our fault, will the destruction to life on this planet be so bad for it, and will the catastrophic consequences of global warming happen as quickly as Al Gore believes? I was left with an uneasy aftertaste: what was your point?

If global warming is not the fault of humans only - in particular pampered American humans - and it won't be changing the planet for many hundreds of years, giving life on earth time to gradually adapt, then what actions do you want your audience to take?

Can I now make my day-to-day existence easier and cheaper, beg the town where I live to stop their recycling program, work to end scaring neighborhood children and Oprah about drowning polar bears? If it's not my fault, hey, why pay $7.00 for an Al Gore light bulb to stop some of my share of carbon dioxide from further warming a planet that someone else or something else is making warm? If life on the planet is truly not in danger because evolution - if you agree there is such a thing - illustrates how adaptable earthly life is, are you saying, hey, use all the disposable plastic grocery bags you need and toss that canvas thing you have to wash all the time? I'd really rally for that, John, less laundry!

Oh, and what about that catchy subtitle for your broadcast: "Challenging Conventional Views About Global Warming." Am I misunderstanding your meaning, John? Are you calling "conventional" the recent view in the United States accepting the existence of global warming? What are a few years of consensus on global warming compared to over 30 years of scientists trying to out-shout self-interested government officials and business lobbies who proclaimed that their moneymaking emissions had no negative effect on the planet? Conventional, customary, sanctioned by society: that would be the old view that we, the people, just toppled. Or perhaps we did not.