What sources have shaped your opinion on global warming?

1. Do you accept or reject the notion of a warming planet?

Yes, that seems to be the case at the present time, although with random variation modulated on top of the warming signal, so it may hold steady or even go down for a few years, before continuing its rise.

2. Your list of most persuasive sources, such as:

a. A certain book...what? No book in particular, but I have an extremely large library of advanced scientific books on physics, atmospheric science, geology, mathematics, oceanography etc. The replacement cost would probably be $20-30k, to give you an idea how large it is. My knowledge of physics, atmospheric science, and oceanography all point toward AGW being significant.

b. A web site...link?

The web sites I like best are the National Weather Service sites, the National Hurricane Center, the Storm Prediction Center, Kerry Emanuel's tropical model site, and the WeatherUnderground.--not for the coverage of AGW, which is minimal, but for the coverage of weather, which is my first love (or maybe second, after geology).

c. A person you know: friend, mom, pastor, dog catcher?

In a negative sense, from Fred Singer. After spending some time with him, showing him around and hearing him speak, I've come to the conclusion that there are scientists who are unscrupulous enough to spread disinformation for their own political purposes.

d. College professor: what discipline?

Not just one college professor, but many. One is a very famous meteorologist, another is a geologist and expert on ice cores, a bunch of others are oceanographers, and one is an expert on atmospheric chemistry. While I have been aware for a long time (I'd say at least 35 years) about the potential for climate change due to increased CO2, I'm always very skeptical when people claim the climate is changing. People have very short and imperfect memories with regard to weather, and are quick to claim that the weather is different now than when they were a kid. But the evidence for global warming is overwhelming, and it comes from many different directions: atmospheric temperature measurements, glacial retreat, physics, numerical models, satellite observations, etc.

e. Talk show host: who?

You've got to be kidding. They're almost all idiots.

f. Experience in some extreme weather event on non-event?

No, you've got to be very careful trying to assign global warming as a cause for individual weather events. There is a definite change in the pattern of extreme warm events vs. extreme cold events. Warm events are about twice as common now as cold events.

g. Newspaper? Which?

I don't read newspapers any more, except online for a few local sports stories.

h. Yahoo Answers?

There are a few people I've learned things from in Yahoo Answers. More than anything else, I've learned that there is a large and vocal group of people that deny AGW, based on disinformation and misunderstanding.

In general, reading the pros and cons of the subject, and also the somewhere in between discussions. I'm certain that Y!A has had an influence on me, because it's a good place to read the different opinions which many persons have to offer. In particular, Frst Grade Rocks and Koshka have had a big influence on me, because I like reading what they have to say, even when the comments are in the form of satire. I didn't really stop to read about this subject until they were my contacts, and I took notice of what they wrote. My father was an early global warming enthusiast, though at the time it wasn't called global warming.

1. Accept, but that doesn't mean I accept every opinion in that category. I still don't agree with what is said by many on the "accept" side.

2. No certain book or study, but more of a compilation of all these. I was in this Super Derecho, and it forced me to stop and think about weather changes my father had predicted long ago.

http://radblast-sf.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/radar/...

http://thesouthern.com/news/local/article_3997b28c...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_2009_Southern_Mid...

For other persons and website, see the first paragraph. Talk show hosts? I can't make it though any talk show for more than a few minutes.

1) accept. It's warming, we're causing it.

2) i - my own research, done because I'd been hearing about the possibility and because I wanted to know whether it was possible to answer the question at the time. My synthesis came from textbook knowledge, commercial production figures, and the Keeling curve. Nothing since has contradicted my answer.

I now follow the science primarily on the web, mostly because due to curiosity about new findings and new measurement techniques. I eagerly await anything new on dynamics under ice shelves. The headline is generally what gets my attention, after that I try to follow it back to know what the scientist said, as opposed to the reporter's/editor's (usually mis-)interpretation.

I accept the fact that the planet is warming (can be directly measured now) and accept teh notion that human activity is a significant contributing factor (determined through modeling).

My most influential source is other - research. I researched in the late 1980s for one of my degrees. I used many different peer-reviewed sources from many discilplines about how climate affects forest ecosystems, past climate and reconstruction, GCM models, ocean circulation patterns, greenhouse effect and gases, cloud and aerosol effects, feedback mechanisms, resource economics and supply and demand modeling. Emphasis was on forest ecology and economic aspects. The other was a lit review. This was all pre-internet. I did a very large review of the peer-reviewed literature for background. I was very unsure about how the science would unfold in the late 1980s, but much of what has been found has just reinforced what was only suspected in the late 1980s.

1. I do think that the planet is warming

2. school has influenced me, and they think there is global warming so :)

one teacher was saying how he saw the effects himself, he went to a place with good weather all the time ( i think hes been there for many years on holidays) and quickly the weather changed and he said it was devastating :(

the people there were struggling because of it

1. Do you accept or reject the notion of a warming planet? I accept it.

2. Your list of most persuasive sources, such as: The laws of thermodynamics and an understanding that gases with bond dipoles absorb infrared radiation.

1. I think it is happening

I base that on the science, I have an open mind and certainly don't thick scientists are infallible

but the evidence is now very wide spread from temperature, to glacial melt, to the known GH effects of CO2 to sea level rise. Deniers seem to think that calling people names, pretending to be scientists and inventing well over 100 conspires/theories is evidence, what it is, is good proof of what deniers are really about, which is why none of them have the courage to comment on the many many theories they have put forward, because even they realize this is the weakest point in their case, which is already full of weak points. So they rant about "hockeystick graphs being disproved" when they can't produce any real evidence to back the claim. They claim it all being caused by the Sun, when the Sun has in fact gone through a small decline in activity over the last 30 years. They claim nature produces 100 times more CO2 than Man when in fact it is currently the exact opposite, we produce 100x the CO2 of nature

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15....

The have come up with numerous theories like Climategate, Amazongate & Dutchgate to try and explain away climate change, what they can't do is come up with a theory that lasts more than 5 minutes both Amazongate and Dutchgate fell in a heap, and few deniers will now even mention them

Climategate they still try to reference by either ignoring the results of several reviews that cleared the issue up, or falling back on their standard line of just calling it all lies and part of yet another global conspiracy, yawn!!!

http://planetsave.com/2010/06/28/th-sunday-times-a...

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2010-...

The most glaring denier con is the continuing reference to all the mistakes in the IPCC reports but press them and they actually have just a couple, a couple of reference errors and that's about it in a set of documents that contain several million words. This is what passes for evidence in denier land.

Things I give no weight in reference to AGW are friends, mom, pastor, dog catcher, Talk show hosts that is the sort of reference points deniers seem to use.

Which is a key into this

"Accept. Rush Limbaugh.

Another:

Reject: Physics professor."

Above would seem to be the sort of logic choice a denier would make.

I can't help but find this (from jimbo) deeply funny

"Reject: political posturing from those pretending to be informed about science."

Given his long history of rants about communists, and the pretty clear evidence he has no scientific qualifications and I doubt he has never even meet a "geology professor". although I'm pretty sure he has convinced himself that personal attacks against those who point this out cover the fact he can't actually answer science based points, as a number of us here have shown over and over again, it's a bit sad really.

1. Do you accept or reject the notion of a warming planet?

the planet is generally cooling and has been for billions of years. It has been cool for the last 2 and half million years when we entered into the alternating glacial and interglacial periods. It seems to have been warming for about 300 years. Before that it was cooling. Before that it was warming. Does that fit your definition of a warming planet? It doen't fit mine.

2. Your list of most persuasive sources, such as: Various geology courses required for degree

a. A certain book...what? NA

b. A web site...link? No..

c. A person you know: friend, mom, pastor, dog catcher? Not likely. Unlike alarmists, I don't look to others to form my opinion.

d. College professor: what discipline? Pretty much all of them as a whole but not specifically on AGW, just on geology. AGW wasn't an issue in the 1980s but geology deals extensively with changing environments and climates.

e. Talk show host: who? None/ Rush Limbaugh is not a scientist but is very much an expert in politics. He has demonstrated his ignorance of science in the past but that doesn't mean he isn't correct about the politics of AGW.

NA fo the rest.

Accept: my geology professors and general science background

Reject: political posturing from those pretending to be informed about science.

1. accept

2. A post graduate degree in atmospheric sciences,

data and analysis from published scientific papers,

posting from research organizations NASA, Universities, NOAA

1. Accept the notion of a warming planet

2. i. other: My Job and my education: I have a BSc hons in environmental chemistry, an MSc in analytical bioscience and work doing mostly palaeoclimatology and organic geochemistry research. I have to read through quite a large amount of scientific literature for my job and have worked on quite a few palaeoclimates projects.