[amadsen]

If you are looking for quality I suggest you look at the IPCC reports. Each word is carefully chosen, every claim backed by mountains of evidence. They're written to be read and understood by non-experts. They exist to inform decision making that will literally determine the fate of our species. As such, they may be failing at their goal, but not for a lack of effort by the authors.

[mif]

I disagree. The IPCC may contain a lot of scientific evidence but the way it is presented is highly political. Every word in it had to be negotiated and that is not the same as “carefully chosen”. If you want to dive into climate change I’d suggest to take a look at “The Warming Papers” [1], an edited compilation by David Archer and Raymond Pierrehumbert.

[1] https://www.wiley.com/en-us/The+Warming+Papers%3A+The+Scient...

[juujian]

Agreed, with one caveat. Over time governments have more and more been trying to influence the reports. It all came to a head with the last one, where a set of researchers released their draft ahead of time in protest over undue influence. They still synthesize relevant research from past years, but there are some problems now. Research published after the first draft cannot be included, so the report is somewhat outdated by the time it's released. Beautifully crafted though.

[froggychairs]

One of the best pitches I’ve ever read for an IPCC report. They are good reads too! Maybe not very joyful.