I have been critical of the media's portrayal of climatologists vs. economists. Here are some issues I would like to see cleared up with good reporting.
1) Global warming is supposed to lead to increased numbers and/or intensity of hurricanes. If global temperatures are increasing at the poles, then shouldn't there be fewer hurricanes since it is temperature differences across global regions that cause hurricanes? Shouldn't the warmer temperatures decrease the excitation energy responsible for their formation?
2) Do climate models account for the 'Iris Effect'? This is where upper level cirrus clouds contract with increased temperatures. It provides a strong negative feedback effect that actually decreases the warming effect of increased CO2 levels.
3) Do climate models incorrectly emphasize positive feedback mechanisms while empirical evidence supports negative feedback loops?
4) Can you empirically link past CO2 levels to climate change and forecast what effect anthropogenically produced CO2 will have on the climate in the future? How can you statistically separate the effects of solar cycles, the earth's rotation, and its axis tilt from anthropogenically increased levels of CO2?
5) Can you explain or debunk the early February article published in the journal Science that documents a reversal of ice melting in Greenland?
However, until even naive questions from laymen (like above) are taken seriously and addressed formally by the media with facts, skeptics of AGW will remain.