What are acceptable sources of "scientific knowledge"?

No reference is so good as to be unquestionable. In fact citing references is only the start of a discussion. There is also verifying that a proponent is correct about the reference, verifying that the reference is relevant, and then verifying that the reference is correct.

Papers with data, at least to the point that we understand the data, are more easy to verify, but it is equally important that the reasoning and implications based on the data are correct.

As to your last question, I don't think limiting the conclusions to what is generally agreed on is a useful technique for a debate site. What is wanted is a chain of fact and assertion that is logically rigorous and based on the truth and the strength of that chain is what we want to discuss here.

I'm pretty skeptical about this approach. Advertising can be applied regardless of the truth, and the deeper pockets are against the science. With all of the publicity so far, people still cannot tell the difference between climate and weather.

I believe that the Supreme Court is about to confirm that propagating absolute, bald faced, vicious lies using grotesquely huge amounts of money is absolutely cool during a political campaign, and few things are more politically involved than global warming.

Yes, something like this might work for preventing forest fires. I'd get a big old bear to deliver the message. But Smokey would not have to fight the Koch brothers and 60 Plus.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.