And do not site sources like Wikipedia or any other user edited site - they can be influenced and biased to a degree of downright lies.
Quoting Wikipedia is far better than quoting nothing at all.
So precisely what sources *are* unbiased?
Liberals will not accept Fox. Conservatives will not accept ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, MSNBC, BBC or CBC (I think sheer volume alone indicates which side is correct. When all the world is against you then the problem is more likely to be you than it is to be the rest of the world, but whatever, I'm not trying to burst anyone's bubble).
Or how about conservative anti-AGW "think tanks" like the following.
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Citizens for a Sound Economy
George C. Marshall Institute
Citizens for a Sound Economy
None of these groups nor any "scientist" associated with them is acceptable to anyone pro-AGW because all of them have demonstrated oil company sponsorship. Interestingly enough the first three also have significant tobacco funding as well.
However this funding information comes from SourceWatch, which because this information impacts these conservative think tanks negatively, will automatically be excluded by anyone anti-AGW.
Then you have sites like RealClimate that I referenced earlier in the thread. This is a blog site but unlike most other blog sites it's members are "real" climate scientists. But while this is a great site for the pro-AGW crowd the anti-AGW crowd won't accept this either.
Then there's a whole raft of sites like the following.
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Global Change Research Program
United States National Research Council
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Geophysical Union
American Meteorological Society
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
International Arctic Science Committee
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
World Meteorological Organization
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Science Foundation
European Federation of Geologists
Network of African Science Academies
Plus the 32 national science academies of the following nations: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Ghana, Germany, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, New Zealand, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Sweden, Tanzania, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
This list is literally endless (I could have quoted literally hundreds) and I even haven't begun to list all the university sites in this category. However since *all* of these sites agree with the scientific consensus and support AGW, they are acceptable to anyone pro-AGW, but are automatically biased according to anyone anti-AGW.
Heck even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists cannot deny the validity of AGW even though they do not support the "maximum case scenarios forecast in some models."
So what's left as an acceptable source of information? The answer is *nothing*. Most reasonable people would assume that the list of governmental and scientific agencies would be perfectly acceptable. But not to the anti-AGW crowd. That's why they're called *deniers*.
The bottom line is that quoting sources is *always* a good thing. This allows someone that disagrees with you to verify your source and *if* they feel it's biased then they're perfectly able to google someones sources to actually *prove*, or at the very least backup, their claim of bias. Without sources all you have is a bunch of folks spouting whatever they feel like off the top of their heads with no proof whatsoever. Even a bad source is better than no source at all.
So prove that you've at least taken the minimal effort to back up your claims and quote a source. You still may be shot down but at least you won't look like a total idiot in the process. Anyone can be misled by an inaccurate source, only a fool spouts bullshit that is easily proven wrong.