Here's a site I think we should keep an eye on.

http://www.realclimate.org/

Great articles that goes onto great depth to explain the global warming story forom real scientists viewpoint. Stories like-
27 May 2006
Positive feedbacks from the carbon cycle- warming in the coming century could be increased by carbon cycle feedbacks, by 25-75% or so.
22 May 2006
More on the Arctic- Svartland Svalbard, an Arctic island in the Northern North Atlantic, is predicted to warm considerably more than most of the rest of the earth...
18 May 2006
Thank you for emitting- the CEI (an industry-funded lobby group) has launched a new ad campaign that is supposed to counteract all those pesky scientific facts about global warming.
10 May 2006
Al Gore’s movie- Since Gore is rumored to be a fan of RealClimate, we thought it appropriate to give our first impressions.

Make sure you read some of the comments and check out their archives.

Define "real" scientist. Is that a scientist on the Clinton payroll or the Bush payroll?

kmac, please go HERE and play awhile.

As to your second question, which would you prefer?

Are you interested in scientific information exchange/discussion or are you merely trying to start a fight?

Catherine

In real science, there is no bias. As the late Carl Sagan said: "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." The goal of science is to find out how the natural world works, regardless of the outcome. Science is also self-checking. All credible work is published and reviewed. Almost every time, the work is re-done by many others.

Take for example some research I did recently. I had a hypothesis that the pollinator for Cirsium hillii (hills thistle) was either endangered or extinct from the area. So what is my goal? To prove myself wrong. My goal was to find as many of the pollinators as possible. Now, if I wanted to be cheap, I could have just sat for ten minutes, said i found nothing and left. This is what many right wingers think scientists do. The look for what they want, when that isnt how the process even works. We scientists are always out to disprove ourselves and others.