Was reading a sort of philosophical article about 'global warming', well, AGW, and tend to agree with author's point. Since climate science is so complicated, it may not be the best idea to gather individuals opinons on AGW, but rather, find out which authorities they subscribe to. Personally, I'm rollin' with the IPCC et al. I don't know of any 'higher' authorities at this point.
I look to NOAA, NASA, and AGU, but this is more work than just looking at the IPCC summery. I also look to a great deal of the MIT research, but that may be simply because I have a cousin that does climate research there who keeps me informed.
I don't look to any "authority" when the questions I need answered can be done by my own examination. I would offer that the OP question might be misleading in that a very large segment of the population picks their "authority" based on their political leanings.....which is a very, very defective authority regardless of politics. Given the very large cross section of folks who do not know the difference between the factual rise in CO2 levels vs. the predictive modeling of future climate trends, I find that economic self interest seems to be a much more attention getting approach than any other approach I talk about. If I say my monthly gas bill is less than my phone bill, I get a quizzical look, followed by questions later. If I say I'm considering an electric car to reduce my recurring expenditures, same thing. If I say I've figured out how to get my electric bill under $100 a month, same thing. In other words, I try and avoid involving any authorities and politics, otherwise the message gets sidelined by hearsay from radio or TV.
You have a point that 'authority(ies)' is likely not the best word. Perhaps 'source(s)' would have been better. I have no climate data that I have captured, so I look to sources for information - IPCC, EPA, EIA, NOAA, etc.. I don't want information based on political agendas, I want the most factual information from the most qualified authoritative bodies. When I see blogs on other sites from people casually denying AGW, I would like to know 'where did they get their information?'.
Physics professor Richard Muller is sort of the self-appointed mediator and his views are rational and have influenced my views on this issue more than anyone else this year. He is author of Physics for Future Presidents and owns a Prius. He veered a little left of right this year, as you may know.
In some areas, I can go to the primary science literature. There the observations and experimental results are the 'authorities', being interpreted by the authors. Whether the authors' interpretations are quite right is dealt with in future research. All part of the process of science. In other areas (climate modeling, oceanography, glaciology etc.) the primary literature is outside of my understanding, so I must go a step back and rely on the authors' interpretations as authority. Or two steps back, to review papers or things like IPCC (which is quite like a review paper, although the inclusion of gray literature has ruffled some feathers there). Or three steps back, to web sites that discuss such matters (in the context of science). Here again, we hear complaints that web sites have their own agendas. However it is not so difficult to detect when they might be overstating the case, if one has a general understanding of the science. Back to the first, my example is the terrestrial carbon cycle. I'd like to claim that nobody can pull the wool over my eyes there. In fact my work for the recent years in China is directing me towards disputing (in some cases strongly) what is held as common knowledge in studies of plant matter and soil organic matter decomposition. Therefore the next few years will be interesting for me, publishing unexpected findings and trying to upset some paradigms. Maybe I'll feel like Lindzen or Spencer then. That would be an interesting irony. Overall, the original experimental results and observations seem to me the best authority, but there is personal investment in being able to access them.
"Sources?" is indeed a much better question. Most of my info is comes from "Science" published by the AAAS. The very broad array of subjects from reconstructing past climates to profiling human occupation sites makes for a better understanding than a single focus on one aspect.
Climate scientists and atmospheric physicists. Not TV weathermen, not career politicians, not professional rabble-rousers or pundits, not PR hacks, not retired mining geologists who developed their very own climate model on a PC.
The UK Met office has published 20 country-based reports Climate: observations, projections and impacts - Met Office "In April 2011, we were asked by the United Kingdom's Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change to begin a project to compile scientifically robust and impartial information on the physical impacts of climate change for more than 20 countries." I have gone quickly through 3 of them. Some new cited literature since the 2007 IPCC is helpful. The reports overall seem a bit ponderous. I wrote that really small so you wouldn't notice. But if, for whatever reason, IPCC cannot come up with a 5th assessment report, things like these will have to serve as our guides to the primary literature.
