Considering that honest science articles aren't easy to read, what is the next best alternative?
Breitbart, WUWT, and Climate Depot are each run by a small handful of well-documented hard-core anti-science ideologues who take money from the fossil fuel industry. Many Wikipedia pages are sloppily done or have errors (although the system does have some built-in correctibility), but Wikipedia has many thousands of active editors, which makes the kind of severe systematic bias and dishonesty so rampant on Breitbart, WUWT, and Climate Depot much more difficult to sustain. I don't think many science professors would recommend that their students use Wikipedia as a main source of information, but that is NOT what the anti-science kooks are claiming. They claim NOT that science texts and peer-reviewed articles are more reliable than Wikipedia, but that their fossil fuel industry disinformation sites (most, like WUWT, run by non-scientists who are rabidly ANTI-science) are better sources than Wikipedia. They try to dodge this, just as they will deny that their anti-science is anything much beyond a pack of 20 year-old warmed over lies, UNLESS the greatest conspiracy in the history of the known universe has been occurring. These anti-science wanna con-artists are so full of hypocrisy it pours out their ears. They would like people to believe that one weatherman funded by Koch is pure and objective while thousands of Wiki editors from around the world, with all sorts of specialties and opinions, are systematically biased. Or, more to the point, they think that by shoveling 20 year old pre-fab 8th hand copy-pasted anti-science 24-7, people will be so numbed that they stop asking whether there is the slightest consistency in the BS torrents of these science-hating crackpots.
http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/voca...
http://www.desmogblog.com/anthony-watts
http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/voca...
As Maxx has said, Climate Depot is mainly a collection of links, the day's talking points, if you like. I am always amused when people slate Climate Depot because it only occasionally expresses an opinion.
WUWT is on my list but I don't read all the articles by any means. After some time it becomes like this site, you can sort out the articles to avoid just by skimming the headlines.
You might like Judith Curry's site: http://judithcurry.com/
Wikipedia. But read the referenced articles.
Not wikipedia they are biased too, although I do go there a lot, I remember reading about a list of droughts and heatwaves in Australia going back to the late 1700's that has dissapeared now, replaced by versions that only talk about more modern heatwaves and droughts and implying they are caused by global warming.
I would suggest going to as many places as possible, but be skeptical about them, don't swallow everything they say and check the sources, the more source of info and the more different points of view you read the better, you just have to sort the wheat from the chaff.
Certainly not Wikipedia, for this is what is says about H. H. Lamb, "In 1971 Lamb decided to base his pioneering research at a university, and he became the first Director of the Climatic Research Unit established in 1972 in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia.[1] In 1973 and 1975 he arranged for two international conferences which were hosted in Norwich. At first his view was that global cooling would lead within 10,000 years to a future ice age and he was known as “the ice man”, but over a period including the UK's exceptional drought and heat wave of 1975–76 he changed to predicting that global warming could have serious effects within a century. "
Now how can you have it both ways? H. H. Lamb was for an Ice Age then was for Global Warming and both were caused by excessive CO2. Ha! Ha! What folly!
You can verify Wikipedia information if it has a citation (little blue number after a quote or paraphrase) and you just click on it or scroll to the bottom and click the number. The problem is that some cited material is not credible or just does not exist.
Climate Depot is the best because they cover EVERYTHING, they have little material of their own, it's mostly a collection of links to stories in the media about the man-made Global Warming SCAM. But there are also links to article that contain the links to the actual peer-reviewed material. So you get very broad coverage of the issue, even the Alarmists point of view is often linked so you can see both sides of the story. http://www.climatedepot.com/
Wiki is second best, Wiki's problem is that it too often bows to political pressures. A good example is the Wiki page on the so called 97% consensus, which does not exist. Wiki uses the utterly debunked Cook et al paper as the basis of the article, which may be the most laughable and debunked paper in the history of science.
But for simple non-political facts and figures that relate to AGW, Wiki is a useful source.
-----------------------
WUWT provides links to all walks of opinion regarding climate change.......even the political activist site....'skeptical science'.
If you're interested in actually understanding the science itself, the best site I'm aware of is http://www.skepticalscience.com/
National geographic
Public broadcast shows like NOVA
Nasa. Website has a kid section on climate
What is a reliable source in popular media?
Considering that honest science articles aren't easy to read, what is the next best alternative?
I would also recommend the NASA website, it has numerous pages of evidence and scientific conclusions.
all except wikipedia
Wikipedia, no question. The others are propaganda sites.
