What is an unbiased site with lots of information on global warming?

Question

(or as close as you can get to unbiased these days)

Answer 1

The Discovery of Global Warming (American Institute of Physics):

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index...

Current carbon cycle science:

http://co2conference.org/agenda.asp

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sa...

http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/activ...

Charts and presentations (NASA Director Dr. James Hansen)

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/

Especially the comparision of three data sets here:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2...

RealClimate

http://www.realclimate.org/

Just because a site draws a logical conclusion doesn't make it biased.

Answer 2

You wont...science by nature is bias, it is to seek the absolute truth about anything and everything that exists in our universe, what your looking for here is absence of political  agendas. Start with these two guys. Richard Lindzen of MIT and Timothy Ball. Both are respected Climatologist.

Answer 3

I like these guys.  They back up their stuff with proven science.

http://environment.newscientist.com/chan...

These guys have a superior reputation for cautious unbiased science, but the global warming stuff is not the easiest to find:

http://www.nationalacademies.org/

They have issued an official statement that global warming is real, and mostly caused by us.

http://www.nationalacademies.org/include...

Answer 4

RealClimate - climate science from climate scientists.

Answer 5

There aren't any, it's either a world government bureaucratic pro-AGW site interested in keeping their paychecks, or a right wing neo-con/religious site out to dis-prove the tree huggers. Either way they are out to steer you in one direction or another. Objectivism no longer exists in our society.

Answer 6

climateaudit.org

Steve McIntyre's site.  He is a statistician, so is mostly concerned with the quality of the data used and proper mathematical manipulation of the data.  It makes you wonder how anyone can claim that the data is good.

Answer 7

www.climateaudit.org

realclimate is to climate what Paul Krugman is to economics - yes, they're climatologists, like he's an economist, but......

Realclimate's main contributor is Dr. Michael Mann, who came up with the Hockey Stick.

Answer 8

There a many actually, but for something unbiased, it would have to be peer reviewed and wikipedia.com offers the best examples on the greatest number of subjects I have seen; covering, the controversies and every accepted or popular angle.  Wikipedia is also the best site in the world with regard to following up with real sources (nothing comes close) and correcting obvious errors or mistakes.  

If you are needing to know this because you plan on writing a report or wish to just get a better understanding, this is certainly a great place to begin your research.

Below I will include two great links to check out that actually open up many many more great links on this subject.  Both are from wiki of course:)

Enjoy, good luck...

Answer 9

Sometimes it seems like stinky badger is right. The IPCC has done some questionable things with reports, excluding data from certain periods, writing summaries after the scientists have gone home. Monitoring stations being moved for no apparent reason and yet they consistently report higher temps in their new locations. James Hansen, well don't get me started on him.

On the other side you have Heartland and Heritage, surely not unbiased but I'm not sure they're in the pocket of big oil and besides, big oil now appears to be on-board with human caused global warming. All you can really do is look at the facts and try to interpret them the best you can. You don't need to be an expert to read a graph and understand the numbers.

The site linked below has an instructive chart showing historical temp and CO2 levels going back 600 million years. Most AGW advocates show charts going back 1,000 years, like the infamous hockey stick chart Al Gore used. The chart at this link shows that temp was 10 degrees C higher than today when CO2 levels were 19 times higher than they are now. 19 times higher. It will take a long time for us to produce that much CO2 yet they predict that temp increase in the next 100 years. It also shows CO2 levels far higher than today, about 4,200 ppm compared to 383 ppm, during an ice age.

You don't need an advanced degree in physics to see that this doesn't agree with AGW predictions, assumptions or statements. So you decide. It may continue warming but it may begin cooling again. I don't think anyone can predict. The new solar cycle that just began has been weak so far and that typically coincides with cooling periods, it can be readily seen during the Little Ice Age. The lowest sunspot activity in centuries coinciding with the lowest temp in centuries might not have been all that coincidental.