Where I live, in Europe, the climate has changed gradually during the last 4 decades from around 100 days with snow per year to only 2 to 4 days with snow per year.

This certainly does not look like a difference of one or two degrees per century. Regardless which is the actual increase of the average temperature, there can be no doubt that this is a dramatic change which will have unpredictable consequences and also that at least during the last few thousands of years there has never been a so great temperature change.

Where is that ?

How do you know you didn't get 2 to 4 days with snow per year 50 years ago?

Do you trust your government's historic weather statistics?

Or they might talk to people who were alive back then, like grandparents...

Weather statistics has been a solved problem for a long time, it's usually one of the first administration which was put in place

I'm certain the meteor that killed the dinosaurs was without human influence.

You are just trolling right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climat...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change?wprov=sfla1

...which is not the case here at all as there are endless links to _research_ on climate change being real and man made. Some of which can be found in the 500+ references on the linked wikipedia articles.

And you’re pretty sure of that thanks to your expertise as a climate scientist?

From reading I've done regarding previous cooling and warming cycles. But thanks for trolling.

That’s not trolling. It was a request for the level of expertise behind your personal opinions that you are suggesting are relevant to people on this site by posting here.

And your response is useful. “From reading”.

Relative to tens of thousands of scientists of diverse fields, educational backgrounds, affiliated institutions, geographical regions, areas of study, environments of study, experimental approaches, data sources, mathematical analysis, and lots of reading, etc. basing a contrarian view on some reading is inadequate as a credible rebuttal.

For the most part, people on this site are looking for greater insight, not greater expression of personal opinions.

It may not be "trolling", but it definitely violates the spirit of the HN guidelines[0] (somehow hitting 3 out of 4 of the first comment guidelines -- failing the kindness test, snarkiness test, and editing out swipes test).

The comment OP called trolling would be much stronger and more interesting if it posted a "credible rebuttal" instead of being snarky and rude. If that hits an issue with the bullshit asymmetry principle[1] for you, downvote and move on with your life.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law

> And you’re pretty sure of that thanks to your expertise as a climate scientist?

I see your points but this comes over very low on the snarky scale to me.

It is also a point (that expertise matters) that for some reason seems to be especially overlooked in climate change discussions.

I also didn’t see how downvoting someone for not picking up on a point helps anything.