If you think RealClimate is biased, can you provide me with an example?

Question

An earlier question suggested that RealClimate.org may be biased because their website is hosted by a group run by some guy who knows Al Gore and is "closely allied" with Greenpeace and MoveOn.org.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AsmVLdQpHO7jDLHBA.YAosTsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20080214094138AA4BQFA&show=7#profile-info-6VKjvoOBaa

Personally I think this is a silly suggestion, because the climate scientists who contribute to RealClimate don't get a dime for their efforts.

But maybe I'm wrong. So here is my question - if you believe RealClimate.org is biased, can you find one entry on their website which exhibits some sort of bias?

Now, I don't want to see ad hominem or political attacks. Simpy link the RealClimate entry you are referencing and explain how it is biased.

Or conversely, feel free to provide some example entries that you believe shows that RealClimate is not biased, if that's the case.

Here is the link to get you started

http://www.realclimate.org

Answer 1

Here's a perfect example of obvious bias in RealClimate's articles:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...

Shameful, I say. Every honest person knows global warming is caused by llamas. They're just trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

Answer 2

Personally, I have no problem with real climate being biased.  There are many skeptical web sites that are also biased.  To have a problem with it would be hypocritical.

But the fact is real climate is pushing an agenda.  Be it political, or economic.  (Their professions are dependent on people and politicians believing AGW is real)

Anybody who twists words into saying co2 lagging temperature is proof positive that co2 causes temperatures to rise is biased.  

An unbiased web site, is a site that gives information and presents it in such a way as to let the reader make up his own mind.  Real climate is not like that.  Their wording and the language that they use is meant for you to buy into their argument.

In their critique of Al Gore's movie, they did not find anything wrong with it, except for a few minor points.  A British judge found nine.  Not one word that sea levels will not rise by 20 feet.  Not one word that co2 lags temperatures.  Do you consider that truthful?  

In an other section they discussed the role the sun plays in climate.  They gave a couple of quotes from an astrophysicist and said that is the "final nail in the coffin".  These are words intent to solicit emotions, not ration.  An unbiased web site would have given the opinions of the opposing view and then let the reader decide.  And they certainly would not of used the term "final nail in the coffin"

Answer 3

Well I live in the Midwest (USA) and I don't know about all this hoopla but Global Warming don't exist here! It has been VERY cold with way above average snows. So I can personally say from real life experience (I am 80) that it is NOT warmer no than it was 50-60 years ago! Everyone seems to have very short term memories.

Answer 4

member Gavin Schmidt: On March 14, 2007 Gavin Schmidt, Brenda Ekwurzel, and Richard Somerville debated [1] against the statement that "Global Warming is not a crisis." -wiki

member Michael Mann: The hockey stick man

member Raymond S. Bradley:"Bradley's work indicates that the warming of Earth's climate system in the twentieth century is inexplicable via natural mechanisms." -wiki

Edit:  Funny how "credentials" are attacks...

Edit:  You asked for bias...I assumed you meant a bias towards one side or the other of the debate.  These credentials show they are leading experts for the AGW camp.  

To show bias on the site, I give you exhibit A (the only exhibit needed):  An entire section titled "Responses to common contrarian arguments:"

I see no "Responses to AGW proponents".  The fact the site doesn't have to state WHAT the arguments are contrary to would also support the notion the site is 100% AGW territory.  

Do you agree this demonstrates a bias on the website or not?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...

Answer 5

Bias?  Dana, come on.  Almost every single source of information you obtain contains a smidgen of bias.  Take CNN or Fox for example.  We all know they have a liberal and conservative bias.  But you asked for a bias in this "real climate" site?  I believe I've found a tiny, minor bias in this link:  http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?cat...

Notice something about all of the people on this page and the next one afterwards?  

I.  THEY'RE ALL MEN!

2.  They are all white.

Please don't tell me there are no good female climatologists or any Indian Climatologists.  On a site built entirely of men, I'd say there is a slight change of bias.

Answer 6

That site is so huge... you expect us to actually find something that is biased?

Answer 7

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...

They show a clear bias in preferring "An Inconvenient Truth" as a way to introduce the science of climate change to American schoolchildren over an article written by a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute.  Just because the AEI writer has supported Crichton's take on climate and said that supporters of climate change action are "one-worlders and other socialist sorts" does not necessarily imply the book sucks, although it likely does.  

Here's the review of the book RealClimate doesn't like:

http://www.nsta.org/recommends/ViewProdu...

I especially like the soft-peddling of the missing ice core data in the book.  Kind of makes you wonder what other supporting evidence the book omits.

One man's bias is another man's objectivity.

Answer 8

I have one for you to chew.........

How can Al Gore champion the Green issue when he was vice president in a country that adds 22% of all man made CO2 to the worlds total. He did nothing about Americas green issues then, why now..... Has something to do with Money me thinks.

Which is also the same reason most scientist do green issues, cause Goverments are only interested in backing green issues, especially if it says the can tax it and no scientist can study anything without a grant

Realclimate.org like all green sites will only tell you their views so the whole issue is bias, not one of them will give you both sides of the debate and there is two sides to it.