Going after The Onion's niche, the Washington Post seeks Sarah Palin's "thoughts" on climate change. Marc Ambinder takes her apart:

The revelation of appalling actions by so-called climate
change experts allows the American public to finally understand the
concerns so many of us have articulated on this issue.

Remember, the "revelation" was born from an potentially illegal e-mail
hack. "So-called" — untrue. These are experts. Their science has been
validated, independently. Their "actions" here consist of insulting
climate change skeptics, immature name-calling, and, at worst, devising
a strategy to keep the climate change deniers out of debates and
peer-reviewed journals. The "concerns" that Palin speaks of are the
result of years of accumulated science denialism that now,
conveniently, has been seemingly "validated" by the fog of a grand
conspiracy, suddenly revealed.

"Climate-gate," as the e-mails and other documents from the Climate
Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have become known,
exposes a highly politicized scientific circle — the same circle whose
work underlies efforts at the Copenhagen climate change conference.

True
— although the politicization came about as a response to an extremely
well-funded political campaign by those whose bottom lines would be
most harmed by carbon taxes, cap and trade schemes and the like

The
agenda-driven policies being pushed in Copenhagen won't change the
weather, but they  would change our economy for the worse.

via politics.theatlantic.com

If you can't discern climate from weather, you have no business yakking about climate change in a major publication. 

I like the point Ambinder makes about politicization.  Scientists are not by nature spin doctors or politicians.  That's why can you never get them to "guarantee" or offer "100%" certainty about anything.  Steeped in the peer review process, the research community is typically unprepared (and inadquately funded) to offer an effective defence against well organized lay attacks on their credibility.   When they do engage, they are often clumsy or perceived as 'arrogant' by a public with a poor understanding of how science works.  Having the facts on your side is not always enough.