Asking them for an unbiased scientific opinion is about as credible as asking foxes for an unbiased opinion on whether chickens are tasty.
Give me an example of a "biased" opinion on that site. Just one. But to be sure we are speaking clearly here, lets lay down some ground rules.
1) By "biased" I assume you mean "claim not from the scientific literature
2) And is contradicted by a claim from the scientific literature.
Keep in mind here that *all* the staff of realclimate (that I'm aware of) are working climate scientists with unchallenged scientific reputations in the actual field (ie not "cranky undergrad geologist" or "television weatherman") , so if your going to make big claims about this site, be sure to use big evidence!
The site gives proper scientists a bad name. Their only concern is looking after Hansen's reputation,
Why does hanson's reputation need to be protected. The man hasn't done anything wrong! Having lots of spiral-eyed pseudoscience bloggers yelling at you isn't a personality fault dude!
and they gang up and abuse anyone who dares raise proper scientific questions, or who opens discussion about counter-evidence, or suggests that there is something we do not know about the subject. They think the planet works as trivially as a test tube.
They report on the science. If you think theres counter-evidence, the correct forum is to write a paper and submit it to any one of the hundreds of journals that operate in the field. Remember though, big claims require big evidence, and to overturn human driven climate change would likely require junking about a century of physics progress. Theres a Nobel prize in this one if anyone ever did find such evidence!
And then they affirm their lack of scientific integrity with a site ban. Really, the site is best classified as comedy. They don't understand the basis of scientific inquiry nor the scientific method, and think that science is decided by unshakeable opinion and shouting people down.
Whats wrong with a site ban? Having people going on there spouting pseudo-science and then demanding scientists go over the same damn points over and over refuting it gets tiring when theres a perfectly good index on the site for people to educate themselves as to why the pseudo science they are spouting is wrong.
Remember boys and girls, science is not a democracy, it actively silences incorrect opinions becuase they are wrong and don't need to be listened to. The politics forums are elsewhere.