No, I'm not mixing up sources with coverage of sources. I am comparing one news media article in the Guardian to another news media article in the Guardian, and

No, I'm not mixing up sources with coverage of sources. I am comparing one news media article in the Guardian to another news media article in the Guardian, and I am comparing current popular reporting on climate to past popular reporting on climate. Which I think is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and which you think means I lack credibility. That's the issue here. The Guardian now, and in the past, has a history of apocalyptic predictions such as "Ice-free summers in Arctic possible within next decade, scientists say". They haven't proven true in the past, and this one won't either. Because what the Guardian is doing, now and in that past, is to pick outliers and the most extreme predictions in order to generate clickbait headlines. They do this in order to make money, and in order to support their ideology. And it has caused real harm. People who know nothing of consensus climate science will read the headline "Ice-free summers in Arctic possible within next decade, scientists say" and it will cause them needless worry, the way the headline about "the danger of an ice-free Arctic in the summer within two years" caused them needless worry over a decade ago. And the journalists and editors writing these garbage pieces that have turned out to be false for the last 75 years will face no consequences for publishing lies. That's the part I am calling bullshit on. These lies affect peoples lives. And, as I pointed out in my original post, "Liars are not believed even when they speak the truth". There's no article that the Guardian could conceivably publish that would get me to take climate change more seriously.