After the failured reporting on 'Climategate', will the media improve its coverage of climate science?

It's like journalists discovering that when someone loses a heartbeat, doctors decide yell "clear" and everyone stops touching the patient, then being outraged because they should be helping them. Anyone who has done any work in publishing peer-reviewed science knows this non-scam is a complete journalistic failure. It's baffling how anyone can still think Climategate is somehow damning.

EDIT "They ignore the falsified data" There were no falsified data. You're either making things up, your source is making things up, or you've misunderstood your sources. Clint: You have your basic plant biology completely wrong.

Didn't they teach you photosynthesis and the Calvin cycle in Bios 101? And yes, plants are a temporary carbon sync, they hold carbon until you dig them out of the ground and burn them in your car.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.