Well...yes, fusion is nuclear but in this sense "nuclear" refers to the traditional method of using pellets or rods to heat liquids which, in turn, power turbines. Still, I shouldn't separate the two in the interest of being accurate.
Waste disposal concerns with fusion wouldn't be anywhere near as difficult to solve as long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel, that is for certain. The sub-article on long term management may be found here. There is no method of storing spent fuel on the ocean floor with which I agree, even placing it in subduction zones--too high a risk for earthquakes.
Is the identity of one's lawyer generally considered private information?
Usually it's not a big deal. Yes Peter is a client of lawyer John. So what.
In this case the lawyer is kind of a scum bag who pays off porn stars to keep quiet. And the client is the highest paid journalist in America who interviews and defends the lawyer without disclosing that he is a client.
If the client was just a normal guy and if the lawyer wasn't a criminal lawyer it wouldn't be a big deal.
In this case the lawyer is kind of a scum bag who pays off porn stars to keep quiet.
Let us suppose that we have a wealthy person (this person is male, married to a woman, and they have children) who has an affair with a porn star (who is female; she may or may not be married and may or may not have children), so the wealthy person hires a lawyer to pay off the porn star to keep quiet about the affair.
Who, exactly, is the scumbag here? The wealthy person for having the affair? The porn star for having the affair and/or taking the payoff? The lawyer who suggests then facilitates the payoff? I don't see any winners here and I certainly don't see any candidates for "citizen of the year".
I never watched soap operas while growing up so I don't enjoy having to watch them now.
In this case the lawyer is kind of a scum bag who pays off porn stars to keep quiet.
Let us suppose that we have a wealthy person (this person is male, married to a woman, and they have children) who has an affair with a porn star (who is female; she may or may not be married and may or may not have children), so the wealthy person hires a lawyer to pay off the porn star to keep quiet about the affair.
Who, exactly, is the scumbag here? The wealthy person for having the affair? The porn star for having the affair and/or taking the payoff? The lawyer who suggests then facilitates the payoff? I don't see any winners here and I certainly don't see any candidates for "citizen of the year".
I never watched soap operas while growing up so I don't enjoy having to watch them now.
The whole point here is that Hannity spoke publicly in favor of this specific lawyer without disclosing the nature of their relationship. That is the problem. I couldn't care less about the scenario you present.
In general Yes but given the conflict of interest Here him being a major public figure I think full disclosure is quite justified
No it isn’t.
Hannity isn’t on trial. This case isn’t about the ethical standards of a predominant media personality. It is allegedly about bank and wire fraud.
Once again, I am conflicted. I am glad his name was released to illustrate his unethical behaviour but his personal life is personal. We do not need to know why or even if he sought legal council unless it relates to the charges that are about to be brought forward.
@BallpointMan I'm curious, what did I say that made you think I deny that climate change is happening?
@booinyoureyes Really? 90%? Have you ever been in a room with a bunch of scientists? They never agree with each other. especially within the same field.
I was addressing @smeagolheart with that reply, @FinneousPJ . A few posts back, near the bottom of the previous page, I stated that Hannity should have publicly admitted that Mr. Cohen was his attorney (or at least one of them) since Cohen was being defended by Hannity on his news show--we are already on the same page there.
*************
The ACLU is concerned that Congress is going to draft a new version of the AUMF which will give Trump *more* authority to begin military operations with only minimal approval needed by Congress. Where was the ACLU when Obama was beginning military operations with only minimal Congressional input or approval? The fact that they didn't care then when they apparently care so much now means that their concern in this instance is purely partisan. If the situation were up to me, both the AUMF and its older cousin, the War Powers Act, would both sunset; this would move us back to where we are *supposed* to be--the military may engage in defensive action but the POTUS would not be able to say "you know what? send troops into x" without having to explain himself for 48 hours (the current rule). I don't care if there is no piece of paper citing an official declaration of war, engaging in military action against a country or against targets inside a country *is* a declaration of war.
*************
Raúl Castro is stepping down as leader of Cuba; his likely replacement will probably be current Vice President Miguel Díaz-Canel. Obama was right to begin normalizing relations with Cuba and Trump was wrong for impeding that progress.
In other Cuba-related news, a read a story a few weeks ago that a security expert figured out what was likely causing all the problems at our embassy in Havana--high-frequency audio listening devices got placed too closely to each other and this set up an interference pattern, resulting in a "sonic attack". Interestingly, this means that now those listening devices may be used that way *on purpose* as weapons instead of being merely listening devices.
I was addressing @smeagolheart with that reply, @FinneousPJ . A few posts back, near the bottom of the previous page, I stated that Hannity should have publicly admitted that Mr. Cohen was his attorney (or at least one of them) since Cohen was being defended by Hannity on his news show--we are already on the same page there.
*************
The ACLU is concerned that Congress is going to draft a new version of the AUMF which will give Trump *more* authority to begin military operations with only minimal approval needed by Congress. Where was the ACLU when Obama was beginning military operations with only minimal Congressional input or approval? The fact that they didn't care then when they apparently care so much now means that their concern in this instance is purely partisan. If the situation were up to me, both the AUMF and its older cousin, the War Powers Act, would both sunset; this would move us back to where we are *supposed* to be--the military may engage in defensive action but the POTUS would not be able to say "you know what? send troops into x" without having to explain himself for 48 hours (the current rule). I don't care if there is no piece of paper citing an official declaration of war, engaging in military action against a country or against targets inside a country *is* a declaration of war.
*************
Raúl Castro is stepping down as leader of Cuba; his likely replacement will probably be current Vice President Miguel Díaz-Canel. Obama was right to begin normalizing relations with Cuba and Trump was wrong for impeding that progress.
In other Cuba-related news, a read a story a few weeks ago that a security expert figured out what was likely causing all the problems at our embassy in Havana--high-frequency audio listening devices got placed too closely to each other and this set up an interference pattern, resulting in a "sonic attack". Interestingly, this means that now those listening devices may be used that way *on purpose* as weapons instead of being merely listening devices.
You are right referring to Cohen at this point as a scumbag was a opinion not a fact yet proven. I may have been getting ahead of myself there. If charges are proven that have Cohen facing decades in prison I'll call him a scumbag then.
For what it's worth, Obama could be trusted to not blow up the world senselessly if he felt his ego was threatened. You can't say that about Trump. Addressing presidental authority to wage war without Congressional approval was something that was important before but it is something that is now critical. Trump does not adhere to boundaries of accepted behavior or basic human decency. You can no longer take those things for granted or rely on unspoken norms. Now we need action.
Although the JCoS may not balk at sending troops into a location where they aren't really needed, they would refuse any order Trump gave them which would "blow up the world".
@BallpointMan I'm curious, what did I say that made you think I deny that climate change is happening?
@booinyoureyes Really? 90%? Have you ever been in a room with a bunch of scientists? They never agree with each other. especially within the same field.
Sorry if I mischaracterized your point, but essentially @Grond0 was arguing that the climate is charging at a vastly accelerated rate, and you seem to be pushing back on this (citing fundamental disagreements). You also seem to have made several points that you very skeptical of man made influence on climate change.
For the record - in this instance: Climate change = man-made climate change.
And yeah, As @booinyoureyes alluded - most peer reviewed papers that are currently published on the nature of Climate change agree that it is happening, and almost universally agree mankind is contributing.
@BallpointMan Using that definition I can see that. I agree that climate change is happening, where I disagree is the level to which we influence it. I'm skeptical of "climatology" as I never heard of it before the current big climate scare. I wonder how other schools of science view it.
The power is out again in Puerto Rico. And by power I mean ALL OF IT. The Trump Administration has absolutely abandoned the people of Puerto Rico, and their response to what happened after the hurricane there makes Bush's response to Katrina look like a model of competence in comparison. How this isn't the leading story on the news is beyond me, and I'm not sure a President has EVER gotten the kind of pass Trump is getting on this abject disaster in a US territory.
The power is out again in Puerto Rico. And by power I mean ALL OF IT. The Trump Administration has absolutely abandoned the people of Puerto Rico, and their response to what happened after the hurricane there makes Bush's response to Katrina look like a model of competence in comparison. How this isn't the leading story on the news is beyond me, and I'm not sure a President has EVER gotten the kind of pass Trump is getting on this abject disaster in a US territory.
Why isn’t it leading? Let’s see how much more click bait stories are above it at the moment:
Russian Investigation Who will Trump fire/appoint next Stormy Daniels Sean Hannity North Korea talks Russian Sanctions Chinese Tarriffs
Ya then maybe the incompetence of a Republican president’s handling of a disaster.
Just give it to the one year anniversary of the island being hit then it might blip again.
@BallpointMan Using that definition I can see that. I agree that climate change is happening, where I disagree is the level to which we influence it. I'm skeptical of "climatology" as I never heard of it before the current big climate scare. I wonder how other schools of science view it.
So to understand this - you're only skeptical because it's new?
It makes sense to be skeptical of something you dont know a lot about. It's also reasonable to be skeptical about something relatively new (as our understanding of the impact of man-made climate change is compared to, say, biology or physics).
How do you comport your world view on being skeptical of climate change with the incredible amount of data and the scientific opinion of the only people who we can legitimately call authorities in this field almost uniformly saying "This is happening"? If you dismiss their credibility, on what grounds do you do that?
I cannot speak to other schools of science, but since they're all largely coming from the same place (University funded research grants) - it's a safe bet they're just about on the same page.
@BallpointMan Using that definition I can see that. I agree that climate change is happening, where I disagree is the level to which we influence it. I'm skeptical of "climatology" as I never heard of it before the current big climate scare. I wonder how other schools of science view it.
Chances are you actually have heard of it before that without thinking about it. Climatology has been around for a long time and research on greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect was done in the 19th century. Not to mention all the climatology research on ice ages, El Niño, the atmosphere etc. etc. that has been going on for decades if not centuries. Svante Arrhenius concluded that a man-made global warming was possible as early as in the 1890s. He just didn't think it would happen anytime soon since the emissions of greenhouse gases wasn't nearly as high back then.
And it's not like climatology is the only field of study that does research connected to (man-made) climate change. As I said a few hundred pages back in this thread, we're talking about decades of research in multiple fields by hundreds of people across the entire world.
North Korea has removed its demand that U.S. troops withdraw from South Korea as a precondition for denuclearization. That demand has long been a non-starter for the United States, whose military presence in South Korea is necessary to defend against a northern invasion. It's a big change for North Korea, who has long viewed that presence as a threat, believing that the U.S. might invade the DPRK. It's notable that this has come out fairly soon after news broke of Mike Pompeo's secret meeting with Kim Jong-un, which was itself a major change in how U.S.-North Korean relations work.
I am still extremely skeptical of the prospects for denuclearization. Pyongyang has 20 years of deception and promise breaking under its belt. We've made multiple agreements with them in the past, and they've broken every one. If we could get a hard-nosed, complete, and verifiable denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, that would be great for South Korean, Japanese, and American security. China would also stand to benefit from a more stable peninsula. It wouldn't solve all our problems--denuclearization by itself would not remove the other types of WMDs at North Korea's disposal, not to mention the immense human rights abuses within the DPRK--but it would solve one of the biggest.
Ultimately, it hinges on whether North Korea genuinely believes that the benefits of whatever deal we might strike with them would be worth giving up the nuclear weapons they prize so much. And it's extremely difficult to know that, because so much about North Korea's intentions are unknown and unknowable. Without that knowledge of North Korea's true motives, any agreement would have to be absolutely rock-solid to be dependable and worth it. The success of any agreement would depend heavily on the details.
Although it has made some technological advances, especially on the cyber front, the DPRK has been frozen in time for about 60 years from a political and military point of view--they still behave as if the Cold War never ended and as if the United States is looking to invade them just any moment now. Between combining teams for the Olympics and the withdrawal of that demand re: U. S. troops I think we may be seeing the first steps towards some sort of actual peace agreement--technically the DPRK and the South are still at war but under a cease fire agreement--or, ideally, reunification.
*************
Some among Trump's inner circle of advisors--at least the remaining few to which he will actually listen, since Trump usually thinks that his own advice is best--are starting to become very worried that Cohen will flip. This is a real problem for Cohen because Trump has a history of turning on people if he even *suspects* that they *might* be even the slightest bit disloyal to him.
Incidentally, what the heck is a "taxi medallion"? Is that some sort of license to operate legitimate taxis in the Greater New York City Metropolitan Area?
Some among Trump's inner circle of advisors--at least the remaining few to which he will actually listen, since Trump usually thinks that his own advice is best--are starting to become very worried that Cohen will flip. This is a real problem for Cohen because Trump has a history of turning on people if he even *suspects* that they *might* be even the slightest bit disloyal to him.
What's sad is that Trump demands you be loyal to him while he will show you no loyalty in return. He will be the first one to throw you under the bus (usually via tweet)
@JoenSo The fact that the discipline is that old and there is still no hard data that humanity has any kind of significant global climate impact is troubling for entirely different reasons.
Except there is. What exactly do you consider hard data if decades of research, tons of data and thousands upon thousands of scientific papers don't count? What is troubling is rather that there is so much data all pointing in the same direction.
People keep saying that, yet never produce it. NOTHING that mankind has ever done is on the level of the few global climate change events that have happened in the past. At best we have changed things locally, and never permanently.
Incidentally, what the heck is a "taxi medallion"? Is that some sort of license to operate legitimate taxis in the Greater New York City Metropolitan Area?
More or less, but it's separate from the licensing system for taxi drivers. It's a mechanism to limit supply. All yellow cabs are required to have a taxi medallion, and until recently, only yellow cabs could legally pick up street-hail passengers anywhere in NYC. (There's a new system of green cabs for the outer boroughs, so the yellow cab restriction now only applies to Lower and Midtown Manhattan, plus the airports.) There are under 14000 medallions in existence, and they can be bought, sold, and leased. They reached peak value earlier this decade when some were selling for over $1 million, but their value has plummeted with the rise of Uber, etc.
People produce it all the time. I'm not going to post sources and articles, because you can check any of the almost 300 sources used in Wikipedia's article about global warming or the 150 sources in the article about the scientific opinion on climate change. Or check the UN reports with hundreds of authors contributing. People in online discussions "never" produce this data because it is everywhere.
There's a lot mankind hasn't been able to do until these last hundred years. The world population didn't even reach 1 billion before the 19th century and now it's over 7 billion. And even before we reached these levels, humans have been able to influence their environment in a significant way for a long, long time. We still see the effects of deforestation in places like Iraq, Easter island and Iceland, hundreds or thousands of years later. To name just a few examples.
If so few people with limited technology can have such an impact on their local environment, I don't see why it should be surprising that billions more with vastly superior technology can have an impact on a global level.
"People produce it all the time. I'm not going to post sources and articles, because you can check any of the almost 300 sources used in Wikipedia's article about global warming or the 150 sources in the article about the scientific opinion on climate change. Or check the UN reports with hundreds of authors contributing. People in online discussions "never" produce this data because it is everywhere."
Must not be that easy, because I have never seen it.
People keep saying that, yet never produce it. NOTHING that mankind has ever done is on the level of the few global climate change events that have happened in the past. At best we have changed things locally, and never permanently.
I'm not worried that climate change will literally destroy the planet. I'm worried that it will make it unpleasant or impossible for humans to live here. Our existence itself is an extremely local phenomenon, and we couldn't have survived here during most of the past. So it's in our interest to maintain some level of environmental stasis for the foreseeable future.
It's kind of like if someone comes to your house, takes a crap on your living room rug, and then explains to you that in the broader scheme of things, animals have probably been pooping in that spot for millions of years, so what's the big deal?
"People produce it all the time. I'm not going to post sources and articles, because you can check any of the almost 300 sources used in Wikipedia's article about global warming or the 150 sources in the article about the scientific opinion on climate change. Or check the UN reports with hundreds of authors contributing. People in online discussions "never" produce this data because it is everywhere."
Must not be that easy, because I have never seen it.
Well, have you ever looked for it? This is a genuine question and not a snide remark (I know it might sound like it). As I said, just checking sources on Wikipedia, reports by the United Nations' IPCC or simply googling will give you enough reading for years.
"People produce it all the time. I'm not going to post sources and articles, because you can check any of the almost 300 sources used in Wikipedia's article about global warming or the 150 sources in the article about the scientific opinion on climate change. Or check the UN reports with hundreds of authors contributing. People in online discussions "never" produce this data because it is everywhere."
Must not be that easy, because I have never seen it.
Google. 10 minutes. Hundreds of pages of articles, dozens of pages of pure citations, graphs, charts, data, raw data in downloadable files, both on the worldwide level with meta-studies, all linking to the smaller, local studies on which the bigger ones are built.
It is easy to find, and now you have seen it. If you want to dispute it, fine. But it is there.
People keep saying that, yet never produce it. NOTHING that mankind has ever done is on the level of the few global climate change events that have happened in the past. At best we have changed things locally, and never permanently.
I suspect this is a peculiarly US point of view. My local university set up a special unit on climate change in 1972, so I'm perhaps more aware (just as a result of reading the local paper) than a typical person of the amount of research done and publications produced. However, I think most people in the UK (and many other countries) would be aware of the volume of research in this area.
For information you could have a look at the IPCC web-site. You could probably spend years reading through everything they've produced since being established in 1988. If you're not aware of that data I suspect that's because a significant number of US politicians publicly oppose the idea of climate change and have tried to suppress research and publications as much as possible (a bit like with gun control I would be fascinated to know how politicians' views would change in the absence of corporate funding). Even in the US though the opposition is from politicians - there are very few scientists that don't believe climate change is happening (though a small number of those don't see that as a major problem).
As I posted before the data we already have shows that the earth is warming rapidly. The speed of change means that many ecosystems will not have enough time to adapt - for instance that's a major reason why why we've lost so much coral reef from the sea in the last few decades. The changes already in train are going to cause a lot of disruption worldwide and nothing we can do now will avoid that entirely. What we can do though is: - take action to reduce the levels of climate change and mitigate the disruption as far as possible. - actively work to improve the way people and ecosystems adapt to climate change. - set up international mechanisms to deal with the huge number of people that will be displaced from their current homes.
@JoenSo Everything I've seen, at best, stops at asserting that climate change is happening (which I don't dispute); or claims people are responsible, but only gives short term examples of local change. In fact, most assersions I have read reach the conclusions that we are responsible for climate change, simply because climate change is happening.
@semiticgod I'll definitely need to comb through these over time.
@joluv The differencebeing that one can stop someone from defecating in their house. Humanity as a whole, cannot prevent Earth's natural cycle.
Comments
Waste disposal concerns with fusion wouldn't be anywhere near as difficult to solve as long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel, that is for certain. The sub-article on long term management may be found here. There is no method of storing spent fuel on the ocean floor with which I agree, even placing it in subduction zones--too high a risk for earthquakes.
In this case the lawyer is kind of a scum bag who pays off porn stars to keep quiet. And the client is the highest paid journalist in America who interviews and defends the lawyer without disclosing that he is a client.
If the client was just a normal guy and if the lawyer wasn't a criminal lawyer it wouldn't be a big deal.
Who, exactly, is the scumbag here? The wealthy person for having the affair? The porn star for having the affair and/or taking the payoff? The lawyer who suggests then facilitates the payoff? I don't see any winners here and I certainly don't see any candidates for "citizen of the year".
I never watched soap operas while growing up so I don't enjoy having to watch them now.
Hannity isn’t on trial. This case isn’t about the ethical standards of a predominant media personality. It is allegedly about bank and wire fraud.
Once again, I am conflicted. I am glad his name was released to illustrate his unethical behaviour but his personal life is personal. We do not need to know why or even if he sought legal council unless it relates to the charges that are about to be brought forward.
@booinyoureyes Really? 90%? Have you ever been in a room with a bunch of scientists? They never agree with each other. especially within the same field.
*************
The ACLU is concerned that Congress is going to draft a new version of the AUMF which will give Trump *more* authority to begin military operations with only minimal approval needed by Congress. Where was the ACLU when Obama was beginning military operations with only minimal Congressional input or approval? The fact that they didn't care then when they apparently care so much now means that their concern in this instance is purely partisan. If the situation were up to me, both the AUMF and its older cousin, the War Powers Act, would both sunset; this would move us back to where we are *supposed* to be--the military may engage in defensive action but the POTUS would not be able to say "you know what? send troops into x" without having to explain himself for 48 hours (the current rule). I don't care if there is no piece of paper citing an official declaration of war, engaging in military action against a country or against targets inside a country *is* a declaration of war.
*************
Raúl Castro is stepping down as leader of Cuba; his likely replacement will probably be current Vice President Miguel Díaz-Canel. Obama was right to begin normalizing relations with Cuba and Trump was wrong for impeding that progress.
In other Cuba-related news, a read a story a few weeks ago that a security expert figured out what was likely causing all the problems at our embassy in Havana--high-frequency audio listening devices got placed too closely to each other and this set up an interference pattern, resulting in a "sonic attack". Interestingly, this means that now those listening devices may be used that way *on purpose* as weapons instead of being merely listening devices.
For what it's worth, Obama could be trusted to not blow up the world senselessly if he felt his ego was threatened. You can't say that about Trump. Addressing presidental authority to wage war without Congressional approval was something that was important before but it is something that is now critical. Trump does not adhere to boundaries of accepted behavior or basic human decency. You can no longer take those things for granted or rely on unspoken norms. Now we need action.
Sorry if I mischaracterized your point, but essentially @Grond0 was arguing that the climate is charging at a vastly accelerated rate, and you seem to be pushing back on this (citing fundamental disagreements). You also seem to have made several points that you very skeptical of man made influence on climate change.
For the record - in this instance: Climate change = man-made climate change.
And yeah, As @booinyoureyes alluded - most peer reviewed papers that are currently published on the nature of Climate change agree that it is happening, and almost universally agree mankind is contributing.
Russian Investigation
Who will Trump fire/appoint next
Stormy Daniels
Sean Hannity
North Korea talks
Russian Sanctions
Chinese Tarriffs
Ya then maybe the incompetence of a Republican president’s handling of a disaster.
Just give it to the one year anniversary of the island being hit then it might blip again.
It makes sense to be skeptical of something you dont know a lot about. It's also reasonable to be skeptical about something relatively new (as our understanding of the impact of man-made climate change is compared to, say, biology or physics).
How do you comport your world view on being skeptical of climate change with the incredible amount of data and the scientific opinion of the only people who we can legitimately call authorities in this field almost uniformly saying "This is happening"? If you dismiss their credibility, on what grounds do you do that?
I cannot speak to other schools of science, but since they're all largely coming from the same place (University funded research grants) - it's a safe bet they're just about on the same page.
And it's not like climatology is the only field of study that does research connected to (man-made) climate change. As I said a few hundred pages back in this thread, we're talking about decades of research in multiple fields by hundreds of people across the entire world.
I am still extremely skeptical of the prospects for denuclearization. Pyongyang has 20 years of deception and promise breaking under its belt. We've made multiple agreements with them in the past, and they've broken every one. If we could get a hard-nosed, complete, and verifiable denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, that would be great for South Korean, Japanese, and American security. China would also stand to benefit from a more stable peninsula. It wouldn't solve all our problems--denuclearization by itself would not remove the other types of WMDs at North Korea's disposal, not to mention the immense human rights abuses within the DPRK--but it would solve one of the biggest.
Ultimately, it hinges on whether North Korea genuinely believes that the benefits of whatever deal we might strike with them would be worth giving up the nuclear weapons they prize so much. And it's extremely difficult to know that, because so much about North Korea's intentions are unknown and unknowable. Without that knowledge of North Korea's true motives, any agreement would have to be absolutely rock-solid to be dependable and worth it. The success of any agreement would depend heavily on the details.
*************
Some among Trump's inner circle of advisors--at least the remaining few to which he will actually listen, since Trump usually thinks that his own advice is best--are starting to become very worried that Cohen will flip. This is a real problem for Cohen because Trump has a history of turning on people if he even *suspects* that they *might* be even the slightest bit disloyal to him.
Incidentally, what the heck is a "taxi medallion"? Is that some sort of license to operate legitimate taxis in the Greater New York City Metropolitan Area?
There's a lot mankind hasn't been able to do until these last hundred years. The world population didn't even reach 1 billion before the 19th century and now it's over 7 billion. And even before we reached these levels, humans have been able to influence their environment in a significant way for a long, long time. We still see the effects of deforestation in places like Iraq, Easter island and Iceland, hundreds or thousands of years later. To name just a few examples.
If so few people with limited technology can have such an impact on their local environment, I don't see why it should be surprising that billions more with vastly superior technology can have an impact on a global level.
Must not be that easy, because I have never seen it.
It's kind of like if someone comes to your house, takes a crap on your living room rug, and then explains to you that in the broader scheme of things, animals have probably been pooping in that spot for millions of years, so what's the big deal?
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
So then I start clicking on NASA's references. Not all of them are directly relevant but here's one...
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf
...and another...
https://data.globalchange.gov/assets/bd/45/cb0ddf20ed4ea6a41d5713cf014d/sap1-2-final-report-all.pdf
...and like most of the articles I've looked up in the past 10 minutes, this one also has a long list of citations to other studies about climate change, from major meta-studies to smaller, local studies...
https://nca2009.globalchange.gov/primary-sources-information/index.html
...much like this one, which has 40 pages in the appendix (199-238) that are literally nothing but citations, listed line by line...
https://downloads.globalchange.gov/sap/sap2-2/sap2-2-final-all.pdf
...but I keep clicking on things, and I run into a study about the effects of climate change...
https://downloads.globalchange.gov/sap/sap4-3/sap4.3-final-all.pdf
...then some other website that has raw data on the subject (I found another article with raw data, but I didn't recognize the format)...
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20170118/
...and after running into an article about changes in sea ice...
http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_ice.html
...and about glaciers...
http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/glacier_balance.html
...I decided to call it quits.
Google. 10 minutes. Hundreds of pages of articles, dozens of pages of pure citations, graphs, charts, data, raw data in downloadable files, both on the worldwide level with meta-studies, all linking to the smaller, local studies on which the bigger ones are built.
It is easy to find, and now you have seen it. If you want to dispute it, fine. But it is there.
For information you could have a look at the IPCC web-site. You could probably spend years reading through everything they've produced since being established in 1988. If you're not aware of that data I suspect that's because a significant number of US politicians publicly oppose the idea of climate change and have tried to suppress research and publications as much as possible (a bit like with gun control I would be fascinated to know how politicians' views would change in the absence of corporate funding). Even in the US though the opposition is from politicians - there are very few scientists that don't believe climate change is happening (though a small number of those don't see that as a major problem).
As I posted before the data we already have shows that the earth is warming rapidly. The speed of change means that many ecosystems will not have enough time to adapt - for instance that's a major reason why why we've lost so much coral reef from the sea in the last few decades. The changes already in train are going to cause a lot of disruption worldwide and nothing we can do now will avoid that entirely. What we can do though is:
- take action to reduce the levels of climate change and mitigate the disruption as far as possible.
- actively work to improve the way people and ecosystems adapt to climate change.
- set up international mechanisms to deal with the huge number of people that will be displaced from their current homes.
@semiticgod I'll definitely need to comb through these over time.
@joluv The differencebeing that one can stop someone from defecating in their house. Humanity as a whole, cannot prevent Earth's natural cycle.