What sources that agree with you are to be trusted?
What sources that disagree with you are to be trusted?
Your question is a bit confusing.
The best sources for information on global climate change are scientific agencies who study the the information. NASA and NOAA in the US are good sources for example.
As a science major, I agree with the conclusions of educated people who study particular fields, whether it is climate or physics. One fantastic thing about science is that it is all interconnected. Geology goes hand in hand with biology, astronomy works with biology, etc. Climate science works hand in hand with all of those.
The worst sources to trust on climate sciences are people who are not familiar with the science or data. AKA the people who say, "Im not a scientist, but the scientist are wrong". Climate is a very complex thing controlled by many different factors. If someone hasn't studied it, they likely have little idea about how it works.
I'm Global Command. My Global Teams from all walks of life & I worked our operations to find, experiment and delete Global Warming. All Nations that had pertinent information tie-in with me since I'm in Command. All my sources are dependable & when one sent info. others also sent in the same info. Global Command
What is to be trusted is that which is best able to follow the best practices of science. Please, people, go to the library or bookstore and check out the book:
Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surely_You%...
It's funny, entertaining and you'll get a clearer picture of what is and is not valid science than you're likely to in most curriculums. His essay on Cargo Cult Science is quite valuable, but he gives examples in many of the other chapters as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_...
The trustworthiness of a science itself, let alone its reporting, is drastically effected by the inherent difficulty of the subject. My objection to climate modeling is quite basic. The very best scientific analysis of insufficient and limited accuracy data cannot extract an adequate predictive model except by chance. And even if you are so lucky, you won't be sure until it's far too late. Only a very long run of accurate predictions can validate a model of long term phenomena like climate, as in thousands of years. There is always the danger of the proverbial broken clock that is absolutely accurate twice a day.
The trustworthiness everybody is on about usually involves things like is it warming or staying the same or cooling. I'm glad you're all having fun, but I trust you realize it proves precisely nothing. For example: The Medieval Warm Period lasted about three centuries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Wa...
Only to be followed by the Little Ice Age of similar length.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_...
And was followed by the warming of our period.
Unfortunately, peer-review in climate science is not trustworthy.
The Climategate Email Scandal and attempted cover-up, exposed the corruption in 'peer-review'.
I am in agreement with Kano insofar as sources.
Although my business is biologically human i hate most because they think there're so entitled which enables it to just kill animals since they please. Who into their right mind feels that's ok? I'm not indicating all humans are in this way but quite a few have caused irreversible damage.
On man made global warming there is no trusted sources in my mind. Neither side agree. Too much controversy to believe anything which MMGW a SCAM.
Of course not, because I don't agree with them does not make them untrustworthy, the ones that are untrustworthy are those who have been caught out, by showing misinformation, by leaning too far one way or another, which is most of them.
But even untrustworthy sources sometimes come up with some truth.
Not necessarily because anyone can make mistakes. However, I do look at who funded the source of the information, what is gained by the funders in the outcome of the research. I find that research done with corporate funding to be of questionable value, especially if the results are helpful to the corporation. That source of information is a tad too self-serving to be reliable. It needs to be verified by independent research.
Now we see government funding being questioned as suspect by deniers of global warming, a sort of turning of the tables. The argument used: that government gains something by affirmation of global warming. It sounds farfetched to me, but seems to make sense to deniers.
I would trust peer reviewed journals and mainstream scientists, 99% of whom agree human induced global phenomenon is real.
The most trustworthy sources are those that can be traced to peer reviewed journals.
What sources are to be trusted?
What sources that agree with you are to be trusted?
What sources that disagree with you are to be trusted?
it's a good question
Journals that have been peer-reviewed. University studies. I trust .org and .gov sites. NASA and NCDC. Not bloggers.
what i agree with is not relevant. that the publication or scientists have credibility does. the closer the source of research and evidence the better.
nasa is closer to great information than fox news, let alone blogs.
Accredited scientific journals I agree with with articles that have been tested and retested. Scientific journals that allow replies, rebuttals, addons, and o on.
