Climate change – what are the origins of the arguments you use?

I get most of my information from blogs, news articles, and so on then after I get that information I go on Google Scholar and search for peer reviewed articles to corroborate what I've heard or read. The articles I trust the most from Google Scholar are those posted in science journals such as Nature, Science and Geophysical Research Letters to name a few. If I can find the real data from the original source I'd also look at that.

Erin: With regards to the Ozone hole look up the Montreal Protocol. It was a worldwide agreement to limit the use of CFCs. With regards to the cooling of the 70s... it wasn't put forward by the majority of scientists. It was put forward by the media. To look at science read scientific journals not media interpretations. The cooling from the 40s to the 70s was caused by increases in atmospheric aerosols which masked the warming due to an increasing greenhouse effect. Something else for you to look up.

The data I used to prove to myself that AGW exists and is significant come from:

Atmospheric CO2 - Keeling curve

Human fossil fuel output - CIA factbook, DOE published statistics, Petroleum Institute, some others. These numbers are reasonably consistent with one another about how much fuel we produce and use. (I don't know how incestuous or honest the reporting bases are and don't know how to check easily.)

Textbook checks on how a greenhouse gas works as well as reference to some old math homework.

Textbook, class notes, and google searches on solar variability and earth orbital variation (I love Munk's research on ancient solar eclipses and what they say about orbital and rotational stability)

Ongoing, if I see a news article that interests me I'll check it at least to the first reporter, a direct quote from the personnel involved or a scientific abstract is preferred. I'll trust just about anything I hear with the voice of SIO, WHOI, Lamont-Doherty, or Norsk Polarinstitute, amongst other institutions, behind it. If it has numbers attached, I try to do enough math to think Feynman would give a passing freshman physics grade to my approach.

I could just copy about half of the answer I gave to the first of your 3 questions here... hmmm. Naah!

- BA, Chemistry, Manhattan College, '74

- 5 decades of following climate, mostly in the popular science press: subscriptions at one time or another to: Science Digest, Science News, Scientific American, Natural History, National Geographic

- texts and reference works of my own, eg: Climatic Change, J Gribbon ed, Camb. U. Press, 1978, McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences, 1977 and later general, science, and technology encyclopedias

- specific online sources, starting with ScienceDaily, RealClimate, and SkepticalScience, and then on to some of the references they point to

- semi-random online sources, incl. NASA, GISS, NOAA, and many of the blogs both pro and con

If you want to understand climatic facts read up on climatic history through meteorological books…not political newspapers!!! 30,000 scientists worldwide have signed a petition against AGW. Take a look out the window! 2010 -11 record cold winters on all continents!!! The media is silent when temps are low!!! In the 70s they said that we would soon be in peril because Anthropogenic Global COOLING…then the early 90s the hole in the Ozone layer, remember that one?

I am sure there will be the same close minded responses to this statement as are to all people who can think outside the box! Why are these people so afraid to question what the government and media are relentlessly trying to shove down our throats

I have skimmed much of AR4 and read the summary published in ScientificAmerican along with the Royal Society Guide. I often read the abstracts of published studies, and often use this site as a starting point to learn of the questions, issues and new studies. I have used skepticalscience to get summaries and have read the abstracts of many of the studies referred to there. I use web searches to follow scientific debates as well as I can, such as the interesting Friis Christensen v Lockwood back-and-forth a couple of years ago. Along the way I've stumbled across sites that I now check as a reference from time to time, such as solarcycle24.com and the UAH satellite temperatures database. The chronology of the study of climate change at aip.org has been informative, but I've read only pieces of it.

Unlike my good buddy Gringo, I peruse all sites regardless of what angle they appear to be promoting. However, there are a few which I will avoid just because they seem to be a waste of time. I'll even have a few skeptic websites I no longer waste my time with like Steven Goddard at Real Science. As well, if a site has some sort of Christian basis and rejects Evolution, then I'll probably pass.

But getting back to Gringo for a second, the guy cracks me up. He says he avoids sites "...the ones with a clear political bias." Hey Gringo, when you hear the expression "anti-science Republicans", is that a site you avoid because of the political bias?

Very few of us has the ability and wherewithal to conduct scientific experiments of the magnitude necessary to prove or disprove climate change. But for me there are two deciding factors.

Firstly I was a principal climatics engineer so I understand a bit about the atmosphere, greenhouse gases etc.

Secondly my late wife said we have something inside called a "Knower", where we know things. Honest people have an instinct about dishonesty and, given the debates I have studied for a couple of years, the truth rests with climate change skeptics, the same as it does with 911 Truthers - they are more honest, more rational and more sober in their approach to the issues and politicians of all persuasions have proved to be dishonest for so long that whatever they say must be a lie

the pentagon commissioned several climate studies . NOAA , NASA , PBS , readers digest , scientific american , , science , national geographic , journal of climatology

For the actual scientific part I generally use realclimate, skepticalscience, carbonbrief, scienceblogs, rabett run, tamino, NOAA, NASA, RS, etc.

For background information; wikipedia, sourcewatch, desmogblog, potholer54 at youtube.

On top of that I use Google quite often to search for stuff and then use common sense to avoid those sites with a clear denier attitude to the issue in general. A good rule-of-thumb is avoiding sites which mention Al Gore in almost every single post and the ones with a clear political bias.

When I come across a new site, I always check the author(s) of the site, its connections (ie, sites it links to) and other issues it publishes about. Another important thing I try to check is the original author of a given post as many things are nowadays copy-and-pasted all over the internet and stuff tends to get deleted/distorted in that process.

To Ottawa Mike:

<<"Gringo, when you hear the expression "anti-science Republicans", is that a site you avoid because of the political bias?>>

I have yet to come across a site I use for references/research which uses the term "anti-science Republicans" or similar as much as 'skeptic' sites uses terms like "Al Gore", "Envirofascists" or claims that AGW is a giant conspiracy to take over the world.

The 'anti-science Republicans' is a well founded claim given the Bush administrations succesful attempts to insert doubt into scientific reports coupled with the fact that it is mostly republicans who question both GW and AGW.

"All but one of the 48 Republican hopefuls for the Senate mid-term elections in November deny the existence of climate change or oppose action on global warming, according to a report released today." 2010

What's more, questioning and/or denying AGW along with evolution apppears to be positive qualification for GOP presendential contenders.

I understand you might have an issue with that but that is your effing problem. Reality does not have a political bias yet it is primarily the right leaning politicians world-wide who prefer to ignore reality and hype pseudo-science.

The argument is only one sided. I challenge anyone to find 5 legitimate educated climatologists that deny the deterioration.