Yes, it seems to be biased towards science. Its agenda seems to be to educate and inform.
There are many oil industry-funded sites with a clear political bias, spouting crazy theories about socialists, communists, global conspiracies, and other fanciful tall tales, but RealClimate.org seems to entirely avoid that sort of manipulative alarmism.
The best source for info is to follow stories to the source they're citing, preferably a peer-reviewed scientific paper, and see if the source is credible and see if they're characterizing the results correctly. One RealClimate article I read wasn't as clear as I'd like it to be, but I haven't caught them at any blatant misrepresentations. As for the skeptical blogs, I can't recall reading a single article that didn't contain questionable sources and/or serious misrepresentations.
It's really not that hard to double check stories and their sources. It rarely takes me more than 5 to 10 minutes to research and identify the flaws and/or funding behind denial (so-called "skeptical") propaganda. Some people simply seem to have no interest in doing so (questioning their conveniently self-serving beliefs).
I can understand why Arlie Schardt and others exposed to the science for a long period of time would find educating the public to be a rewarding and worthy thing to do. Regardless of their history however, the organization does seem to understand that it has to take the high road to maintain credibility. If you feel otherwise, please try identify specific examples of their suppsed lapses in truthfulness, rather than simply try to smear their reputation in some vague and general sense. Tactics like that don't do you or your argument any service.