Realclimate.org

I often rely on a site called realclimate.org for information about climate science. The tag line of the site is “Climate Science from Climate Scientists” and the writers are some big players in the field. So before you even read an article you’re told this is ‘real’ climate info, the .org sells the institutional authenticity even more, and the writers are professional climate scientists (for instance, Michael Mann of ‘hockeystick’ fame is a contributor). The site is very explicitly leverages professional credibility from the outset, and I think current researchers in a particular field of science are the people I would want to consult for information. The starting point for the website has several different summaries on the basic science of climate from multiple independent credible sources. (By the way, I first found this NOAA primer on Climate Literacy through the site. It’s really really good: accurate, non-technical, and non-preachy)

An important feature of the site are point by point rebuttals of common arguments against climate change and information is both ala carte and indexed by knowledge level. It’s very easy to find what you are looking for aside from there own content there are staggering numbers of links to other sources of information. Since these are scientists in the field, they tend to reference the journal articles and original research. Again all this has the effect of enhancing the credibility of the information for readers with varied knowledge levels. What's funny is that I was annoyed by Crichton's avalanche of references, manly because I couldn't immediately click on a link, but also because they were so vague in what they were actually referring to in the text that actually checking it was a real chore. In contrast, with online links and meaningful citations those references become truly useful rather than just piling exhibits with no real organization.

One of the ways the site works to construct it's view is the open source feel of it and that rather than being written for a single generic audience, it really seems written for multiple overlapping audiences of different education and interest levels. That allows it to employ the best arguments to each potential reader by in a sense meeting them where they are. There are numerous individual arguments and constructions in varying styles, but the broad sub rosa argument of the site is that climate science is credible and there really is overwhelming consensus on the key points. Evidence matters, studies matter, scientific plausibility matters and even just letting people know they exist in important. In a sense that is more powerful than singular rebuttals, because the credibility argument is one playing out in public.