# Facts won't change your mind about anything **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 19, 2015, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293 "2015-01-19T17:29:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2015, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/241 "2015-02-12T19:29:59Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Nah, you are just playing games, As I predicted, it made no difference at all. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Please, even academics know it and school children are learning that: > > [| KQED | News, Radio, Podcasts, TV | Public Media for Northern California](http://science.kqed.org/quest/2014/12/12/water-vapors-role-in-climate-change/) A web page with no author, and no sources, which makes it as valuable as your opinion about this. Like I said, you show me a source that claims water vapor is a feedback loop in the atmosphere, and you have some facts. Just repeating something that isn’t true, will not make it a fact. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2015, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/242 "2015-02-12T19:32:27Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > This is a perfect example of the very real problem at hand. I think[the meaning of that](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18120347&postcount=41)was missed somehow. It’s not that somebody ignores a fact, the fact never even makes it into the rational mind. Instead a more primitive part of the brain takes over, and the facts don’t matter. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2015, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/243 "2015-02-12T22:46:41Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > As I predicted, it made no difference at all. A web page with no author, and no sources, which makes it as valuable as your opinion about this. That is Quest at KQED, PBS for you. The source and funding is the National Science Foundation. You see there is a method to the madness, I always like to test is a contrarian can look around a site. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > Like I said, you show me a source that claims water vapor is a feedback loop in the atmosphere, and you have some facts. Just repeating something that isn’t true, will not make it a fact. That was only to show that academia and educators are telling us like it is, it is you the one that has to show that the sources they are relying on are wrong. [http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3799.1](http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3799.1) > [@](#): > > Abstract > > The climate feedbacks in coupled ocean–atmosphere models are compared using a coordinated set of twenty-first-century climate change experiments. Water vapor is found to provide the largest positive feedback in all models and its strength is consistent with that expected from constant relative humidity changes in the water vapor mixing ratio. [http://atoc.colorado.edu/~dcn/ATOC6020/papers/Soden\_etal\_727.pdf](http://atoc.colorado.edu/~dcn/ATOC6020/papers/Soden_etal_727.pdf) > [@](#): > > To the extent that water vapor concentrations increase in a warmer world, the climatic effects of the other greenhouse gases will be amplified. Models of the Earth’s climate indicate that this is an important positive feedback that increases the sensitivity of surface temperatures to carbon dioxide by nearly a factor of two when considered in isolation from other feedbacks, and possibly by as much as a factor of three or more when interactions with other feedbacks are considered. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2015, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/244 "2015-02-13T00:05:09Z")
One correction there: That is Quest at KQED, PBS for you. The source and funding is the National Science Foundation. You see there is a method to the madness, I always like to test **if** a contrarian can look around an **educational** site. We already know that experts are not to educate people like FX, but others can learn that experts already looked and answered assumptions like this one: [QUOTE=FXMastermind] But if something as basic as what was the temperature for a place and time is argued over, or worse, we find the data is “adjusted”, and changed, and then presented as “a fact”, and now the argument is over “what actually was the factual temperature”, it’s just crazy at that point. One might ask, why would anyone change the temperature record? [/QUOTE] > **[RealClimate: Noise on the Telegraph](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/02/noise-on-the-telegraph/)** > > RealClimate: I was surprised by the shrill headlines from a British newspaper with the old fashioned name the Telegraph: “The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever”. So what is this all about? The story makes serious... > [@](#): > > I was surprised by the shrill headlines from a British newspaper with the old fashioned name the Telegraph: “The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever”. So what is this all about? > > The story makes serious allegations, however Victor Venema explains why the Telegraph got it wrong in Variable Variability, and makes the point that three hand-picked stations from Paraguay – out of thousands – hardly matters. He also shows the effect of post-processing on the global mean temperature: it reduces the global trend compared to raw data. > > The story also sparked some discussion between colleagues at the Norwegian Meteorological Institute, where I work, as several of us know the scientist cited in the paper quite well. It would be completely out of character that he’d endorse the views expressed in the article, and this is also what he conveyed to us. > > The records show that the recent high temperatures on Iceland are unprecedented, contrary to the main message from the Telegraph. And the evidence is not just in the temperature, but in a wide range of observations. > [@](#): > > It is implied that such adjustments have been made to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) data as well as the data from the National Climate Data Center (NCDC). > > The purports about systematic one-way adjustments can easily be tested by comparing the trends in the GISS data with the independent North Atlantic Climate Data (NACD) or a more recent temperature analysis for Svalbard by Nordli et al. (2014). > > It is straightforward to test Booker’s claim with open-source methods and data (see R-srcipt), and when we compare the independent Svalbard temperature from Nordli et al (2014) with GISS, we see that the GISS data has a smaller annual mean trend than the independent Norwegian data set for the same years (Figure 1). > Comparison between Nordli et al. (2014) and the GISS annual mean temperature for Svalbard. > > But is Svalbard representative for the this part of the Arctic? We can repeat the exercise for the most important temperature records from this region, and it is clear that there is no one-way adjustment, as purported in the Telegraph (Figure 2). In other words, our inspection of the actual data shows that Booker’s claim is false. > [@](#): > > Homogenisation is needed to remove effects from non-climatic artifacts, such as a change in the formula over time for estimating monthly mean values. Other conditions may include relocation of the thermometer, urban encroachment, or replacement of the instruments. GISS uses the GHCN adjustments, rather than doing it itself, but the way the GHCN corrects for artifacts may be different to the local met services. > > Booker also accuses GISS and NCDC of using > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > “the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken”. > > > > ``` > > A bizzare claim, and one may wonder why it seems so natural for Booker to make assosiations with misconduct. [George Monbiot, on the other hand, has referred to him as a charlatan bent on spreading misinformation.](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/sep/23/controversiesinscience.health) In any case, a person who writes such a misleading story shows little respect for his readers. It is a fact that confronted with scientists telling us what is going on FX just resorts on calling the scientists that contribute to RealClimate as “Nobodies”, but as anyone can see, the sources FX uses, like Paul Homewood and Christopher Booker, are the ones that are not interested in looking at the science. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2015, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/245 "2015-02-13T00:08:09Z")
Don’t waste your time with this, **Gigo**. Over a year ago, in my response to the ridiculous **FX** claim that no one has ever mentioned water vapor feedback, I linked to [291,000 scientific papers that did just that](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17031279&postcount=142) (currently there are 1,240,000 of them!). I’ve explained it many times and [in my most recent post on the subject](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18109181&postcount=218) I had already provided a link to _Yale Climate Connections_ that discusses how water vapor feedback works; the IPCC has [discussed it in detail](http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/268.htm) in every WG1 report; I had already provided a further description cited from _Climate Change and Climate Modeling_ (J. Neelin, Cambridge University Press), specifically from Sections 6.3, _Climate Feedbacks_, and 6.4, _The Water Vapor Feedback_, pages 201-206. I also explained why the feedback always reaches a point of equilibrium and is therefore stable, another basic fact that **FX** didn’t know. No reasonable person at this point could possibly fail to understand the basics of atmospheric water vapor feedback, and anyone who had attended a class in high school science would not have failed to understand it in the first place. It is no longer plausible that this is just a matter of ignorance. You cannot argue with someone who is not interested in an honest discussion and never has been. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2015, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/246 "2015-02-13T00:16:23Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Don’t waste your time with this, **Gigo**. Over a year ago, in my response to the ridiculous **FX** claim that no one has ever mentioned water vapor feedback, I linked to [291,000 scientific papers that did just that](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17031279&postcount=142) (currently there are 1,240,000 of them!). I’ve explained it many times and [in my most recent post on the subject](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18109181&postcount=218) I had already provided a link to _Yale Climate Connections_ that discusses how water vapor feedback works; the IPCC has [discussed it in detail](http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/268.htm) in every WG1 report; I had already provided a further description cited from _Climate Change and Climate Modeling_ (J. Neelin, Cambridge University Press), specifically from Sections 6.3, _Climate Feedbacks_, and 6.4, _The Water Vapor Feedback_, pages 201-206. I also explained why the feedback always reaches a point of equilibrium and is therefore stable, another basic fact that **FX** didn’t know. > > No reasonable person at this point could possibly fail to understand the basics of atmospheric water vapor feedback, and anyone who had attended a class in high school science would not have failed to understand it in the first place. It is no longer plausible that this is just a matter of ignorance. You cannot argue with someone who is not interested in an honest discussion and never has been. Of course I know of your excellent efforts before, but I also posts to teach others, the point here was to show that indeed even high schoolers are learning what the scientists and experts have reported. It is also good to realize how in places where this counts, contrarian sources like Christopher Booker are completely ignored as they are just full of hot air. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2015, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/247 "2015-02-13T00:27:21Z")
wolfpup and GIGObuster, I am not sure what you are worked up about. FXMastermind insists that people simply can’t see various facts when they are pre-disposed to disbelieve them and then he demonstrates that with a personal example. I don’t have a problem with any poster using their own errors to point out human foibles. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2015, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/248 "2015-02-13T00:39:40Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > wolfpup and GIGObuster, I am not sure what you are worked up about. FXMastermind insists that people simply can’t see various facts when they are pre-disposed to disbelieve them and then he demonstrates that with a personal example. > I don’t have a problem with any poster using their own errors to point out human foibles. As I said I post to teach others and to learn too, and I agree with you about the part about him using his own errors, it just does not mean that no one is learning from them. I also do as I become aware of the sources out there that are poisoning the debate. And Christopher Booker is a fink. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2015, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/249 "2015-02-13T01:27:50Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > . . . contrarian sources like Christopher Booker are completely ignored as they are just full of hot air. Is that hot air part of global warming? A feedback loop? A forcing? Inquiring minds want to know. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2015, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/250 "2015-02-14T22:14:35Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Inquiring minds want to know. As a Mod, you have seen more than a few threads, moderated a few discussions, been around. Have you ever witnessed somebody change their mind, based on being presented with facts? How about massive walls of opinions? Ever observed anyone simply change their mind after being “presented” with an endless wall of text? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2015, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/251 "2015-02-14T22:18:21Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > As a Mod, you have seen more than a few threads, moderated a few discussions, been around. Have you ever witnessed somebody change their mind, based on being presented with facts? Yes. A fair number of times. > [@](#): > > How about massive walls of opinions? Ever observed anyone simply change their mind after being “presented” with an endless wall of text? No, those tend to be counterproductive. People feel like they’re being blitzkrieged, and they don’t like it. It seems to be more effective to work on one point at a time, with patience and as much courtesy as possible. People are far more open to a respectful debate than to the other kind. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2015, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/252 "2015-02-14T22:20:23Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > People are far more open to a respectful debate than to the other kind. Isn’t it funny how that works? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2015, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/253 "2015-02-14T23:36:15Z")
A corollary might be that Pit Threads don’t exist to convince anyone… Anyway, yes, seriously, I have seen people’s minds changed by well-executed debate. I’ve changed my mind a few times on this basis, and I’ve successfully persuaded others. Obviously, most of the time a debate forum is an echo chamber between two brick walls… (Also a place where mixed metaphors go to die.) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2015, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/254 "2015-02-14T23:40:08Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Isn’t it funny how that works? Well, it has been noticed by experts that the temperature adjustments are appropriate and, if anything, the unadjusted data makes the climate change even worse. > **[Just the facts, homogenization adjustments reduce global warming](http://variable-variability.blogspot.com/2015/02/homogenization-adjustments-reduce-global-warming.html)** > > A blog about climate data quality and the climate "debate" by climate scientist Victor Venema who likes variability. > [@](#): > > \*\* Just the facts, homogenization adjustments reduce global warming\*\* > > Climatologists make adjustments to climate data to remove non-climatic changes (homogenization). This fact is used to accuse them of fiddling with temperature data to create or exaggerate global warming. This is often done by showing for a small piece of the data and suggesting it is typical. Often mentioned is the USA, where the raw data only show half the warming of the adjusted data. However, the USA is big, but still only 2% of the Earth’s surface. > > In recent weeks we had a similar case in The Telegraph about Paraguay. Last year we had similar misleading stories about two stations in Australia and the stations in New Zealand. > [@](#): > > The land surface temperature trend has to be adjusted up because old temperatures were often too high due to insufficient protection against warming by the sun, possibly because the siting of the stations improved and there are likely more reasons. > > The old sea surface temperature are adjusted downward because old measurements were made by taking a bucket of water out of the ocean and the water cooled by evaporation during the measurement. Furthermore, modern measurements are made at the water inlet of the engine and the hull of the ship warms the water a little before it is measured. > > But while it is a pure coincidence and while other datasets may show somewhat different numbers (the BEST adjustments are smaller), the downward adjustment does clearly show that climatologists do not have an agenda to exaggerate global warming. That would still be true if the adjustments had happened to go upward. For more information: > **[Scientists dismiss claims of "fiddling" global temperature data - Carbon Brief](https://www.carbonbrief.org/scientists-dismiss-claims-of-fiddling-global-temperature-data/)** > > This January, we saw the usual flurry of announcements by the world’s major meteorological agencies... If the basic reply to that is to claim that the experts are involved in a conspiracy or that no one has discussed and checked the data before, **that is not really being respectful or mindful of what the facts are**. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2015, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/255 "2015-02-15T00:02:50Z")
And of course our former SDMB member, Astronomer and physicist Phil Plat ( **The Bad Astronomer** ) has a few lines about this reheated “controversy” > [@](#): > > **No, Adjusting Temperature Measurements Is Not a Scandal** > [@](#): > > The latest salvo in the War on Reality comes from the U.K. paper the Telegraph, which is a safe haven for some who would claim—literally despite the evidence—that global warming isn’t real. > > The article, written by Christopher Booker (who flat out denies human-induced global warming), is somewhat subtly titled “The Fiddling With Temperature Data Is the Biggest Science Scandal Ever.” In it, Booker claims that climate scientists have adjusted temperature readings from thermometers in Paraguay to make it look like the temperature is increasing, when the measurements off the detectors actually show the opposite. The theme of the article is that scientists “manipulated” the data on purpose to exaggerate global warming. > > This is nonsense. The claim is wrong. The scientists didn’t manipulate the data, they processed it. That’s a very different thing. And the reason they do it isn’t hard to understand. > [@](#): > > So you start reading the data, but over time someone buys the property near the field, and builds houses there. Driveways, roads, houses leaking heat … this all affects your thermometer. Perhaps a building is erected that casts a shadow over your location. Whatever: You have to account for all these effects. > > That’s what scientists do. That’s what scientists did. They examined the data from these thermometers all over the world, and tried to minimize the impact of outside influences. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be able to trust the data. > [@](#): > > So, far from being “the biggest science scandal ever,” this isn’t even a scandal at all, and is in fact how science works. You can’t just take raw data off a detector and claim it’s real; if you do so, then at best you’d be fooling yourself, and at worst you’d be trying to fool others. And that’s certainly not how science works. So once again, The Telegraph, Christopher Booker, FOX news and many others are just deceiving many skeptics, skeptics that did not bothered to check good sources of information that discussed issues like this in the past. [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/10/21/new-independent-climate-study-confirms-global-warming-is-real/](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/10/21/new-independent-climate-study-confirms-global-warming-is-real/) ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2015, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/256 "2015-02-15T00:41:34Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Obviously, most of the time a debate forum is an echo chamber between two brick walls… (Also a place where mixed metaphors go to die.) That one is very apt in this case, tho. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2015, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/257 "2015-02-15T02:36:22Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > A feedback loop? A forcing? It’s funny because a while back in one of these topics (they all start to seem the same at some point) I used an example of how CO2 could be a feedback loop, if you define something as a feedback loop because it causes more of itself to happen. Of course the howls of protest were loud and long, but just yesterday while looking for a source that would say “water vapor is a feedback loop”, which of course I could not find, I ran across a paper that actually says CO2 causes a feedback loop, because CO2 causes warming, which leads to drought, which leads to forest fires, which leads to more CO2, which leads to more warming, which leads to more drought, which leads to more forest fires, which leads to more CO2. A feedback loop! (my example was using the oceans, where as the CO2 caused warming, more CO2 outgasses from warmer oceans, leading to more warming, leading to more CO2, a feedback loop) I never thought of forest fires. It’s a pretty good example of a feedback loop. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2015, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/258 "2015-02-15T03:59:11Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > It’s funny because a while back in one of these topics (they all start to seem the same at some point) I used an example of how CO2 could be a feedback loop, if you define something as a feedback loop because it causes more of itself to happen. Of course the howls of protest were loud and long, but just yesterday while looking for a source that would say “water vapor is a feedback loop”, which of course I could not find, (Post shortened) Of course, but as **wolfpup** showed anyone can go and look at the links he provided, [like this one](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090219152132.htm), to see that indeed you can not, and let the record show that you are not only avoiding what he found, but also what we continue to find: That the experts are not involved in a conspiracy, that they discussed and checked the data before, and the ones you believe about this are not interested in science, only in misleading others. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2015, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/259 "2015-02-15T06:55:55Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > As a Mod, you have seen more than a few threads, moderated a few discussions, been around. Have you ever witnessed somebody change their mind, based on being presented with facts? > > How about massive walls of opinions? Ever observed anyone simply change their mind after being “presented” with an endless wall of text? What’s your point? I have seen views change based on facts a number of times, but it is certainly not a frequent occurrence. The irony of this thread has been that you attempted to use the research conclusions to attack/discredit your opponents in a different debate, (which, of course, got dragged over to this one), but that the exact same findings apply to your own position in that same ongoing discussion. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2015, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/260 "2015-02-15T13:38:28Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > The irony of this thread Oh yeah, that’s the ironic part all right. :rolleyes: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293.md?page=14)