Using that, I would pay a lot more attention to a paper by Edward Hanna, Julie M. Jones, or John Cappelen, than (for example) something by Fritz Vahrenholt or William Happer.
I like the sources where the explanations hang together in a logical way.
For instance, I would deduct marks if someone claimed that person A dying of gunshot wounds caused person B to fire his gun at him. Same if you claimed that gravity caused things to roll both up hill and down hill. Then there are those who eschew an obvious explanation and go for the obscure. I prefer Occam's approach.
I also tend to view with scepticism people who ignore the rules of logic. For instance, if A causes B and B is happening that does not prove A. (Think: If A shot B then B might die. B is dead so A shot him. Same logic as: GW causes these things, these things are happening therefore GW.)
So, I don't have a fixed set of sources. I just like to add to the existing story without creating any contradictions.
For scientists, peer reviewed papers. But they are hard to read unless you are a scientist.
For all it's flaws, Wikipedia is a good start, as anything wildly wrong is quickly refuted
Source and idea are separate things. What does the source gain if you believe in it?Do you remember the book called the bell curve reputable scientists claimed different races were different intelligence, and it explained every bit of slavery, poverty, of black people in the usa, was not skin color at all. It relied on the credentials of the scum that sold it, the math they published showed they were in error. Listen to every body; try to follow the line of reason. If you can't follow it don't believe in it.
Published science, with a comparison to previous studies and a developing of a robust theory that explains all observations. Uneducated people do not understand the scientific process and will not understand this answer.
Morningfox and gottathink have good answers.
GC
Ever hear of Person B acting in self defense.
Decide who you should believe based on education, experience and peer review.
Get your information from several sources. Be prepared to discard your current beliefs if convinced they are faulty.
Also, please cite such reputable sources for opinions and information regarding Global Climatology along with links to information supporting those selection criteria.
I have found that many, if not all those who refute Climate Change employ this totally unscientific method for the selections of sources:
1) Decide what you want to believe.
2) Seek out sources which agree with that opinion/view regardless of the qualifications, experience, education or reputation of the source.
I predict that I get a lot of argumentative responses but very few actual answers to the question I asked.
