[john_alan]

What you've said is emotionally compelling, but scientifically very weak. Personal recollection is selective and location-specific. You’ve described a memory, not established a mechanism.

What you perceive as change isn't macro, it's micro.

It doesn't mean macro change isn't happening, but it's not happening on our timescale.

I'm 50 FWIW.

[koolala]

What are you considering 'macro' climate change to be then? The mechanism they described was warming climate.

[jwilber]

You can paste this exact response under your other post, as well. Emotionally compelling, scientifically weak. Worth nothing.

But also, what you wrote is just wrong. There are plenty of measurable, significant, ood effects in the last few decades on the climate and its impact.

Here’s one study onglacier retreat over the last 20 years.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021GL09...

And here’s a paper on the effects of the mechanism:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-025-02282-5

I’m sure you’ll read them earnestly.

[_fizz_buzz_]

Just look at any glaciar in the Alps (or almost anywhere in the world really). Over the last 50 years, your liftime, there have been enourmous changes.

[watwut]

Meteoroligista says thw same thing. They have measurements, cause humanity was able to measure and record 30 years ago.

What has no value is to pretend it is not happening because ones favorite ideological movements said so.

[nickserv]

> it's not happening on our timescale.

Talk to anyone over 30 and they'll tell you the climate has already changed.

Well anyone that doesn't have a political agenda or shares in ExxonMobil.

[_fizz_buzz_]

Even ExxonMobil scientists came to the conclusion. They made an internal study in the 70s and it was actually incredibly solid: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063