Every that works for that sight would make Joseph Goebbels look like an amateur.
I remember years back reading about that Soros helped fund it's start.
The stuff I read in the past published there about Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT was beyond sickening. He is a wonderfully humble and brilliant scientist.
He has had to endure death threats because of sites like Real Climate inciting the freaks on the left to go nuts about the fraud of AGW
On ABC “World News Tonight” a few days ago, Sam Champion, the moonbat homosexual weatherman from “Good Morning America,” announced that the harsh winter in Serbia was due to “man made global warming.” What a load of BS.
He funds it almost directly ongoing: Soros -> Fenton Communications -> Real Climate. Real Climate is written by Mike Mann among others and probably funnels money to him. OTOH, Mann was just elected fellow in the AGU, their highest honor, so the fraud runs deep everywhere in the scientific establishment.
Having read alot at RC years ago I found it to be a seminar site. They would let some "deniers" rant and rave (there are plenty of those) but censor (and even maliciously edit) critiques by legitimate scientists. The goal was to portray the other wide as unscientific. To a large extent this has worked. There is also a lot of unscientific nonsense posted here, basically fringe theories that have little scientific support. It's too bad because as Pat Michaels just pointed out http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=14073, there is agreement on the basic science of carbon dioxide warming, and
Finally "more than 97% of all actively publishing* climate scientists agree that climate change is real and human caused" is probably an underestimate, as virtually everyone acknowledges that the surface temperature is warmer than it was, and that multifarious human activities have some influence on climate. Rather, he misses the point well-made by the original Journal article, which is that the rise in surface temperature is clearly below the values first forecast by the UN in 1990. The core—unsettled—issue in climate science is the "sensitivity" of temperature to carbon dioxide, and there are several independent lines of evidence, including the surface temperature history and the water vapor problems, that argue that it has been substantially overestimated.