I dunno, the nurture part of the human experience would have been pretty different growing up during the 60s woulda been quite different to the 90s. Not to mention the entirely different skillsets and technology that those generations are expected to be proficient in, and whether it was a New and Exciting Thing or just Something That Is, having grown up with, say, 3D graphics with a total of more than 17 polygons.

My apologies for the misinterpretation. It was not in the slightest an attempt to misrepresent what you said, just me jumping to conclusions due to how people on the internet can sometimes be about that stuff. Turns out, today it was my turn.

So people aren't allowed to make satire on a generation's impressions of a different generation when they're part of neither generation?

Always did like Shego.

No, I'd still think him an idiot for not trusting what pretty much the entirety of the medical community says; and those that don't have been paid off, have a point to prove, or are being misrepresented for examining something similar or attempting to dispel the myth set up by a doctor essentially professionally unpersoned for being the first two kinds of people. Not to mention that he was performing spinal taps and other unnecessarily invasive procedures on quite literally disabled children during this experiment that proved nothing other than that a) he's a shitbag and b) there's a group of people that will latch onto the potential dangers even if every other study backed by proper science has shown no evidence of said dangers.

Part of my father's salary package lets his employer hold on to some of his pay that he has already earned to cover those days when he is not well enough to work. It is a mutually beneficial arrangement based off of humanity and the understanding that coming to work ill spreads illness through the rest of the staff. In turn, this improves productivity because more people are working at their full potential, rather than coughing up lungs onto their keyboards.
As a potentially useful note, we live in Australia.

Also, this method a) has something utterly unreversable that does something akin to what we've done here as the first step and b) takes centuries of just trying to terraform Mars from a safe, external environment through a single plan with no vested interests in not terraforming it, not to mention not having another group of people take over half a decade later and stop or even undo progress.

... narp?

There is only one flightless bird more terrifying than an emu. Native to the rainforests of New Guinea and northeastern Australia, with a hatchet on its head and a taste for quandongs, it is... the cassowary.

And it's great for people with a fear of flying.

Rumplestiltskin Cabbagepatchkid?

I still like Andromeda, but yeah, EA fucked it. Particularly by making them use an engine with a) no support for proper RPG elements, and b) trouble handling larhe maps. For the most open-world game in an RPG series, that's pretty much the worst decision a publisher could make on behalf of the developers.

In particular, the graphs combined with the relatively understandable refuges of the abstract and the results should give you a clearer and more trustworthy picture than any news story or webcomic page written by a guy who knows lots about a few narrow fields can.

You make a fair point on the emotional side of the argument, but after taking a look at the papers the data gained from the climate reconstructions all has an uncertainty of +- 1.5 degrees Celsius or less. Meaning that, yes, the hypothetical 20kBC thermometer is accurate to within 5 degrees.
We can't go back in time to measure the temperature, so we'll never have the precision that we could have for the temperature today. This I won't and can't deny. However, these reconstructions are based off of reliable mathematical models and would never have been used to even try this if the scientists behind the papers didn't have enough reliable data to use the model to calculate a result with reasonable accuracy and precision.
Also, best way to avoid those biased graphs (which I will admit the one I showed is towards the end, but it's the best understandable example of the point that I have) is to go to the papers themselves, see if you can understand what they have there.

Of course scientists don't agree with each other exactly; if they did we'd finish science, and that's not the point of science. Science is about growing your understanding, and the disagreements grow from that. They're not about if climate change is real; they're about how much of it is from natural cycles, how much we've fucked it up, how fucked we are and how soon the human race will be completely fucked over if nothing is done.

And for any who use the "it's happened before" line in reference to natural heating and cooling of the Earth, I'd invite you to look at this timeline: https://xkcd.com/1732/
You don't even need to read all of it, just scroll and watch the line. But do slow down near the end.