Hi /r/environment. I come to you to ask a question which I have sought the answer to for a long time.

It seems there are two camps in the climate change debate with a growing rift between them, with nobody in the middle. I am of course talking about pro-anthropogenic climate change vs. non-anthropogenic climate change or even non-climate change at all.

To cut to the chase, let's compare two websites. There's WattsUpWithThat on the skeptical side, adamantly professing that there hasn't been warming in the past ten years and that pro-anthropogenic climate change science is mired in groupthink and ulterior motives. The science is good though and the skepticism refreshing. However, when you visit another site like SkepticalScience, the data and arguments are so completely opposite from WattsUpWithThat that it only leaves me confused. SkepticalScience is very pro-AGW and also uses a lot of good scientific data and succinct narration. Both sites have fairly good principles and smart authors, yet the contrast is so stark and disjointed I don't know what to think. SkepticalScience disproves many things in WattsUpWithThat, while WattsUpWithThat disproves many things in SkepticalScience. That's before you delve into the comments on each blog post, which can make the issue almost overwhelming. Of course, there is only one physical reality. I haven't found good sources on the actual integrity of either sources besides typical attacks made by other bloggers on both sides.

The good thing about all of this is that there is good discourse between both sides of the issue. However the discourse is so polarized and the sources similar in caliber, that the real truth is very difficult to extract from the muck. I know most of you in here are pro-AGW (along with the majority scientific community) and some of you probably know more about these websites and maybe the entire debate as a whole. I just was always expecting to find a website that was some kind of collision between the two sides of the rift, where both perspectives were analyzed, yet I can really only find partisan sources that are either super skeptical or completely on board with AGW.