If you're looking for data, without being told how to interpret it, then these are good.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs2....
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/dat...
http://www.climate4you.com/
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/statio...
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/data/ind...
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/satellite-data/...
If you're looking for AGW papers, then this is good. There's a 'recent' papers listing as well as categorised (' index to paper list')
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2013/03...
If you can skip over the politics and the 'he sad', 'she said' stuff then you'll find WUWT is actually quite useful. It has excellent 'resources pages' . The best information (and the worst, just ignore that) is usually in the comments.
Good luck with trying to find anything that's genuinely balanced.
The pipeline is a colossally bad idea from a number of environmental perspectives (and the conclusions in the EIS released by the US DoS were, at the very least, biased by the oil industry), why would you expect Skeptical Science to be neutral, or in favor, of Keystone? What you are asking is for a site that provides a very good overview of how to spot and debunk pseudoscience while at the same time providing instructions on how to train yourself in remote viewing.
It's not about being anti-Alberta, it's about pointing out when something is a bad idea and being done only so a lot of greedy people can make a lot money.
You have to understand that skepticalscience is ran by a very pro AGW supporter who only posts things that he believes and what environmentalists are against. The moderator for this site was very active on this board a few years ago and would have others post his link.
I have seen links to Wattsup a more neutral website.
kano --
>>I would like to find a site that was not biased either way and put forth and listened to arguments put by both sides, unfortunately there is none.<<
Nor can or should there be such a site. AGW Theory is not a political, ideological, or epistemological debate. It is a scientific question - and we have a scientific explanation. "Dueling Theories" do not exist in science. There is 'A' theory - and that theory stands until - and if - it is replaced by a superior theory.
AGW Theory is THE scientific explanation for the recent and current observed global temperatures. There is no contradictory scientific evidence and every alternative hypothesis has failed when subjected to objective scientific scrutiny.
If you want to know what is going on in the scientific world then go to your local library and read 'Science' and 'Nature' magazines - plus any discipline-specific professional scientific journals that interest you.
Well I know you wont like the site because it is anti AGW, but Wattsupwiththat has the largest updated independent references, their reference page is the most complete with data from pro and anti AGW sources, NASA NOAA Wikipedia and so on.
I would like to find a site that was not biased either way and put forth and listened to arguments put by both sides, unfortunately there is none.
I dislike skepticalscience for a different reason: the name. It is not really about skeptical science, and anyway all good science is fundamentally skeptical anyway. A more accurate name might be something like debunking of anti-science. But I don't think this, or the political agendas you object to, detract from the overall value of the site, at least not of the part dealing with the 100+ denialist myths and rebuttals thereto (which is mostly what I use skepticalscience for). Even some of those 'arguments" and rebuttals could stand improvement and/or updating, but as an annotated integrated alphabetized catalogs that list is quite well-done and useful, although there are other sources even for that. Ottawa Mike's recent slam of the site is a very typical 98% copy-paste of Wattsup BS, which complaint I thus presume (though I haven't checked it out yet) to be an utterly boring tempest in teapot ad-hominem deception. As for Pat, when it comes to lunatic fringe conspiracy theory crocs, Billy is much more entertaining.
skepticalscience.com is a blog run by propagandists.
There are many sites that refute skepticalscience.com and it's biased science. They don't have to specifically refute that blog to bring forth reliable information. They don't have to. All they have to do is refute the scientists that skepticalscience.com relies on (i.e. James Hansen, Michael Mann, Al Gore, Ted Danson, IP CC, etc....)
Is there a site which is as informative as skepticalscience.com that hasn't been turned into an anti-Keystone, anti-oilsands, anti-Alberta propaganda site.
