I've seen this game played countless times. "Sources?" Then you do the job of googling for them. Retrieve a few relevant sources. And they proceed to shoot t

I've seen this game played countless times. "Sources?" Then you do the job of googling for them. Retrieve a few relevant sources. And they proceed to shoot them down, even moving goalposts if necessary. They might come back with their own confirmation biased sources. This instance is even more egregious. There is a growing mountain of evidence for climate change. Multiple books, across multiple disciplines, can and have been written. Numerous peer reviewed papers. What's more infuriating is that you don't need climate scientists to corroborate climate change. Because it's not a prediction anymore, climate has been changing already. Disciplines as diverse as geology and biology can detect the effects. If you want to do projections, sure, biologists may not be able to help. But if you want to see the effects today, they certainly can. With such an enormous pile of data, I can't believe this is a legitimate discussion.