Please feel free to cite a single example of a peer-reviewed paper that supports climate change which "predicted the end of the world and got it wrong." All you have to do is find one that set a date for the end of the world due to climate change, that date came and went, and the world didn't end.

Or you can move the goalposts back a bit and show where the accepted science couldn't explain a short-term deviation from the overall expected trend -- like the "plateau" in global temperatures for a few years in the 2010s, which climate change deniers latched onto the way that anti-vaxxers latched onto the universally debunked and retracted Wakefield study and tried to use to "disprove" global warming -- only to find out that the "missing" heat was going into the deep ocean instead of the atmosphere, and measurements up to that point had included only surface ocean temperatures; not the deep. Of course, that won't do a thing to disprove the science, but you can at least take a stab at it.

On the other hand, there's certainly no shortage of non-peer-reviewed, non-scientific bullshit out there that hysterically screams that the accepted science is "hysterical" -- and that's what makes me wonder.

You are correct. One report was regarding an increase in land ice, while the other report was regarding a decrease in sea ice.

The question is not whether the increased salinity is likely causing the decrease in sea ice; that seems like a safe presumption. The question is what's causing the increased salinity?

Don't expect climate change denialists to argue fairly or logically, or to support their arguments with facts and evidence; their beliefs are more of a religion than logic, and they will not let go of them lightly.

And yet it will, because it will continue to be a real thing. And even in the perhaps-extreme scenario where the continually warming oceans do end up resulting in a partial or full collapse of the AMOC, quite probably triggering a new Little Ice Age in Europe, the words "Global Warming" and "Climate Change" will, once again, continue to be on the lips of those who don't think they know better than the subject matter experts.

Yes, Mr. Coward, it does seem that there is a predominant trend toward the right wing amongst the general /. populace, but we don't use the r-word anymore, you know; call them willfully ignorant instead.

I disagree.

That's a good point. I notice the same thing.

Two of those were run-on sentences which should have been neither a comma nor a semicolon. But if forced to choose, then, yeah; the semicolon would be the better of two bad choices.

You are correct. Your single example from a single network that occurred years after the damage was done definitely constitutes an airtight argument and proves that I surround myself with a smug bubble. It definitely proves that the years of concerted, organized efforts of these objectively evil others had negligible impact compared to the traveling-backwards-in-time Jake Tapper book.

What if I consume information that confirms my belief that I'm good at sex?

It is perhaps relevant to consider that the mainstream media lost its credibility not due to significant failings in the media to present reliable and accurate reporting, but instead due to a concerted campaign on multiple fronts, conducted by multiple parties, to falsely claim that the actually trustworthy sources were somehow untrustworthy.

Or perhaps it only seems relevant to me.

Even the former leader of your United States of America, James Earl Carter Jr., thought he saw a UFO once. But it's been proven he only saw the planet Venus.

Pedantry corner: It depends on the cancer (and, I suppose, the limbs involved). I happen to have been living with multiple (well, two) cancer diagnoses for years, but as they are low-grade cancers that are not metastasizing, I experience no significant symptoms and no impact on my lifestyle, and I do not expect that to change before I die of old age. So in my case, I would much rather have these diseases that I wouldn't even know I had if I hadn't been told about them rather than lose any limbs. YMMV.

At least they didn't trust the AI to write the code and screw it up. This actually seems like a relatively careful, appropriate use of AI, of which there seems to be fairly little.

The main story was about SF. This thread was about teachers in general; not just in SF. And I addressed your 20-yr-old anecdotal story about a friend of a friend already. Anyway, to refresh your memory, here is the actual original post in this thread:
The simplest version is if you're poor or some rich, white teacher thinks your race is inferior and just can't do any better, they pad your grade so you pass. If it sounds kinda racist, that's because it is.

I thing you meant to say the easily verified fact that the median teacher salary in virtually every State is less than the median salary overall, as I previously documented elsewhere in this thread, using this Bureau of Labor Statistics link: https://www.bls.gov/careeroutl.... Please stop pasting your same, false statement into half the subthreads on this page.