Both junkscience and realclimate are advocacy blogsites. Realclimate, to me, is a handbook for countering AGW skeptics, not unlike what religious cults have to counter outside influences and criticisms. Junkscience is the same in the opposite direction. I don’t think citing either one proves anything other than establish whose side we are on, and one must read between the lines to sense bias and scientific validity. In the end, only one side can be right: either man’s CO2 0.28% contribution to greenhouse gases (source: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html) is going to cause the earth’s temperature to skyrocket out of control (source: An Inconvenient Truth), or man has nothing to do with climate change, and the point of having these debates is to compare notes, challenge our biases and suppositions, and hopefully force the other side to submit to reason.
