> i'd be interested in seeing any argument that makes the slightest bit of sense that says that the purpose of that site is not "intensive research and solving of problems".
> and "liberal" is obvious from the content of the articles.

Let me just quote the description of the site again, with some highlighting for the reading-impaired:

> RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science.

There is no research going on. No solving of problems. It's all commentary. Or are you claiming news agencies are engaged in politics, economics and sports when they report on these matters?

As for calling the content "liberal", are you seriously suggesting that reporting on science has a political slant? What is this, The Colbert Report? Does reality have a well known liberal bias? Or is it just that anybody who disagrees with you is automatically painted as a political opponent in your mind? This is why I doubt you are a scientist of any kind: You are mixing up science and politics, and that is something your average scientist is very wary of.

> i only mentioned it because you claimed that i wasn't.

And then you immediately claimed it was "irrelevant" just so that you wouldn't have to back it up. Obviously it was not irrelevant enough that you could just let it slide, huh?

So it's time for the good old line: Post proof or retract the claim.