University library and physics journals are not political unless you believe intellectuals are all left leaning socialists. There is some political interference, typically to suppress information the politicians might not want to hear, but generally the truth gets out.
the question would be what side is nature on. A melting glacier is not political.
Every source does not put politics ahead of science, but science is seldom absolute. Theories are meant to be questioned, but that does not mean we cannot act on what we think we know today. Politics does influence science, it always has. However, independence in research is still possible, even in our overly commercialized world. Independence does not guarantee the the research will come up with good science. Good science demands skepticism. Politics demands concrete action. They do not mix well.
I can just explain the science to you, it's not complicated.
If you imagine a sponge, how it has all those holes and pores, well that's pretty much what a carbon atom looks like. When something like carbon dioxide is heated, it takes much longer for it to lose the heat than it did to gain. This is the basic principle behind the main argument surrounding global warming. Carbon dioxide and methane are the two biggest heat trappers in terms of what we pump into the atmosphere.
However, it is important to not that there is much more at play than just the climate effects of pollution. There are also some horrifying things happening in the food chain, oceanic systems, and the water on our planet; all of which contribute to an overall paradigm shift for the organic matter on Earth. Regardless of what happens from this point on, the food chain is going to restructure itself, and humanity is going to have to leave Earth in search of more raw materials, as the Earth is quite simply running out of several of them.
Think of "global warming" as "Cause and effect".
You can't continuously expand and grow and consume and produce if you have a finite amount of resources, that's just basic common sense.
Well some scientists do not seem politically motivated, like Roy Spencer, Judith Curry, Gavin Schmit as I have no idea what there political affiliations are.
Some publications like WATT's try hard to keep politics out of there blogs, while others like Realscience are overtly political.
Comment on Alphs reply, while universities may not be political I find that the majority of academics in them tend to be left leaning, why that should be I have no idea.
I much prefer sites that avoid politics.
Personally I abhor politics, I find both right and left are crap, they are full of dogma and ignore commonsense.
Political? Don't think so. None that can be trusted with the truth.
Look at historical data, from before "Global warming" became a political and press issue.
On the basis of that, there was a mini ice age around 1700 and temperatures have just returned to normal - around the same as they were around 1000 - 800 years ago.
So, temperatures have increased; but only recovering from a "cold spell"...
Contrary to watt denialists love to say, a source that comes up with conclusions that one does not like =/= political.
I enjoy sticking to scientific journals rather than media. Most media is biased because of reader opinion.
The science journals. The science academies, especially The Royal Society and The National Academy of Sciences. These are where you can find the word of sciences.
doubt it
OR, does every source put politics ahead of science?
