"- they are really going to say that the retreat of the glaciers is is just a normal sasonal thing and prove it."

Glaciers are the result of yearly accumulation of snow. If glaciers in general are mostly advancing that generally indicates an approaching ice age. If they are in general mostly retreating that indicated a warming period [global warming]. There is no doubt that we are in a period of global warming which lasted well over 10,000 years. There is also little doubt that we have "recently" left a period of time known as the Little Ice Age. During the Little Ice Age global temperatures were lower than today's global temperature and more glaciers were advancing than retreating- hence the name "Little Ice age". So within the long period of the current global warming there has been many periods time [lasting centuries] which there is cooling and there is warming.
Wikipedia, Little Ice Age:
"For this reason, any of several dates ranging over 400 years may indicate the beginning of the Little Ice Age:

* 1250 for when Atlantic pack ice began to grow
* 1300 for when warm summers stopped being dependable in Northern Europe
* 1315 for the rains and Great Famine of 1315-1317
* 1550 for theorized beginning of worldwide glacial expansion
* 1650 for the first climatic minimum

In contrast to its uncertain beginning, there is a consensus that the Little Ice Age ended in the mid-19th century."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

If glacier had NOT started retreating since mid 19th Century, then we would still be in this period called the Little Ice Age.
But of course not ALL glaciers are retreating and in the 1970s when some scientists thought we might be entering another Ice Age they no doubt cited the ones which were advancing and uncertainty about other glaciers as proof that we were entering a ice age [this was proven wrong { I mean that we were entering a ice age- there were some glacier were advancing but more were continuing retreating and of course, global temperature did lower for a short period of time}].

"- they can demonstrate that the phenomenal and catastrophic 2005 Hurricane season was just an exception in an otherwise normal series of weather patterns."

The 2006 season was abnormally low, do you draw any conclusions about this? You could just easily talk about the number of tornadoes. The simple undeniable fact is we are tracking more hurricanes now then we did 50 years ago, and we were pretty good with monitoring hurricanes 50 years ago as compared to 100 year ago. There are so things to talk about in this regard, but the theory regarding CO2 causing global warming should point to a world getting less Hurricanes not more.
You have been brainwashed to think otherwise. The theory says temperate and arctic regions will get most of the increase in temperature, meaning if the theory is correct, most of the .6 C increase in global temperature in the last Century should mostly reflected in warming in the Arctic AND nite time temperatures in both temperate and arctic regions. Which of course also means very little increase in tropics and summertime temperature [heatwave contrary to your brain washing should not be caused according to the theory by increases in CO2.]
I suppose I will explain this further. The idea of CO2 causing global warming is mostly dependent CO2 level significantly increasing the water vapor in the air. The tropic are in general already loaded to saturation with water vapor, and therefore are unable to be significantly affected. Therefore global warming caused by CO2 is *suppose to* increase the humidity in temperate regions. If an increase of global humidity is not achieved by rising CO2 levels then the amount greenhouse affect solely from increase in CO2 is not significant enough to affect global temperature.

"- they can demonstrate that higher CO2 conecentration is not going to cause a shift in world climate and that Humans have nothing to do with all this."

This is a bit more complicated- I doubt the show can do this. But I will say that it seems to me that human activity has added to the global CO2 level. But how much and whether this is significant is probably beyond the scope of the program. One thing the program might indicate is the we are current living in a cold period in relation to most of Earth history. They might also mention that Earth in last 500 million years [starting multicellular life] has had periods in which CO2 levels are more than 10 times our current level.

"have you ever read anything about "shifting base-lines"?
We are changing the way the planet looks and works, and we want to close our eyes to it until we forget what it was like before... another shifting base-line... only this time it's not only based on oceans observations, but everywhere around us."

I was reading about fish disappearing when I was in grade school [and we are long past the time are supposed to have no fish]. Bitching about salmon fishing was always a fun sport- the environmentalist wanted fish farming. And as soon as that generation grew up and actually started making money fish farming- they said fish farming is a bad idea- hurts wild fish. Environmentalist as a rule want whatever they think can't be done- but if it's done they "shift the baseline".
Environmentalists also used to like the idea of Space exploration- but that was before the US beat the Soviets to Moon.

But there is no shortage of "Green" Billionaires and they are capable buying lots of land.
Just don't imagine environmentalist won't bitch about that in the future.