Is realclimate.org biased?

Question

Realclimate.org is funded by Environmental Media Services, founded in 1994 by Arlie Schardt, a former journalist, former communications director for Al Gore's 2000 Presidential campaign.

EMS is closely allied with Fenton Communications.

Fenton Communications client list includes organizations associated with a diverse array of social issues, but they are most known for their work with liberal causes such as MoveOn.org and Greenpeace.

Since that is such a 'leftward' bias already, and since the 'leftward' bias of AGW and GW is pretty much a known fact.

Doesn't that cast some doubt on realclimate.org? It's an award winning blog. A blog.

Aren't blogs merely people's opinions and not reliable?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealClimate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Media_Services

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenton_Communications

Doesn't that make you think realclimate.org has an agenda?

Answer 1

i am a member of green peace do you know what you are taking about!? of course we have a agenda ,do you !? join us and you will find out all you need to know and more ! maybe you will learn something ! come aboard and see .

Answer 2

No.  I don't really give a darn who hosts the site.  As Alan pointed out, the contributing climate scientists don't get a dime for their contributions.  They're simply provided with a place to put them.

Feel free to read the scientific credentials of the contributors to RealClimate:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?cat...

Blogs are the opinions of the people who write them.  Thus RealClimate is the opinions of climate scientists.  Do you think climate scientists' opinions on climate science are unreliable?  I don't.  That's like saying a doctor's opinion on cancer is unreliable.

This question simply illustrates the lack of respect deniers have for science and scientists, which is generally why they're deniers in the first place.

Answer 3

Not only do they publish claims that are not sufficiently well supported to be published in a credible journal, the also have a lot of anonymous defamation of people who have discovered evidence which does not support their beliefs.

Since when is defaming people for daring to disagree with you a good scientific technique.

Answer 4

Sure.  Try to post legitimate science that goes against the dogma.  It will never see the light of day.

Answer 5

No.  Just because someone hosts a website isn't proof that the website is biased.

If you want to show that, give examples of where they have done anything but apply the most advanced climate science to an issue.

Your first website is actually quite good.  I urge people to read it and decide for themselves.  The last two are irrelevant to the issue.

By the way, do these people represent the "leftward" bias of global warming?

"Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

"National Review (the most prestigious conservative magazine) published a cover story calling on conservatives to shake off denial and get into the climate policy debate"

"Pat Robertson (very conservative Christian leader) 'It is getting hotter and the ice caps are melting and there is a build up of carbon dioxide in the air.  We really need to do something on fossil fuels.”

"I believe there is now more than enough evidence of climate change to warrant an immediate and comprehensive - but considered - response. Anyone who disagrees is, in my view, still in denial."

Ford Motor Company CEO William Clay Ford, Jr.

"The science of global warming is clear. We know enough to act now. We must act now."

James Rogers, CEO of Charlotte-based Duke Energy.

Answer 6

Not a bit. Every single contributer on RealClimate.org is a highly respected, actively researching climate scientist. These guys are some of the best in the business.

And keep in mind that these guys contribute to the site on a volunteer basis, none of them recieve compensation for it. The "funding" from EMS amounts to a grand total of around $30-40 a year for web-space.

Blogs can be perfectly valid sources of information provided the authors are knowledgeable about the subject. And personally, I can't think of a better source for info on climate science than climate scientists.

Answer 7

The definition of AGW is agenda.

Answer 8

Yes, it seems to be biased towards science.  Its agenda seems to be to educate and inform.  

There are many oil industry-funded sites with a clear political bias, spouting crazy theories about socialists, communists, global conspiracies, and other fanciful tall tales, but RealClimate.org seems to entirely avoid that sort of manipulative alarmism.  

The best source for info is to follow stories to the source they're citing, preferably a peer-reviewed scientific paper, and see if the source is credible and see if they're characterizing the results correctly.  One RealClimate article I read wasn't as clear as I'd like it to be, but I haven't caught them at any blatant misrepresentations.  As for the skeptical blogs, I can't recall reading a single article that didn't contain questionable sources and/or serious misrepresentations.  

It's really not that hard to double check stories and their sources.  It rarely takes me more than 5 to 10 minutes to research and identify the flaws and/or funding behind denial (so-called "skeptical") propaganda.  Some people simply seem to have no interest in doing so (questioning their conveniently self-serving beliefs).

I can understand why Arlie Schardt and others exposed to the science for a long period of time would find educating the public to be a rewarding and worthy thing to do.  Regardless of their history however, the organization does seem to understand that it has to take the high road to maintain credibility.  If you feel otherwise, please try identify specific examples of their suppsed lapses in truthfulness, rather than simply try to smear their reputation in some vague and general sense.  Tactics like that don't do you or your argument any service.

Answer 9

The correct answer is "NO", not at all.

The climate scientists writing for realclimate.org do so on their own time with NO compensation.  The generosity of EMS to pay for hosting a web-site (something probably costing around $50/month - whoopee!!!) so the truth of climate change can be presented in a manner non-climate scientists can understand has no influence on the content.

If the guys at realclimate wanted to make money, they'd make a heck of a lot more prostituting themselves to the energy industry, where a single paper can easily net one $10,000.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/20...