# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2015, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/41 "2015-01-21T02:02:08Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > When it becomes a problem is when the ones setting policy are themselves followers of the conspiracies and misleading non-scientific ideas. . . . must . . . not . . . Godwinize . . . Damn! :smack: ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2015, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/42 "2015-01-21T02:05:18Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > If we apply reason and logic to the part that is most seemingly true, what do we find out? > > “Facts are good things and I like them” > > Would anyone actually disagree with that? My first reaction was “Of course! Who would want the reverse?”. Nobody wants falsehoods, and nobody likes being fed lies, or statements-presented-as-fact that are just not true is any way. So that’s a no brainer, until you think about it. What is a [fact](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact)? What are facts? Can we even, in this thread, agree on that? (we have to agree on something, just to be able to communicate at this point) > > [source](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact) > > So using that general definition, facts are not “good things” at all, in fact (pun intended) many facts, like my bank numbers, PINs, passwords and private information are the opposite of “good things”, if somebody else has them. So even “facts” are not something that exist apart, but are in context either good or bad. Certainly, with no doubt at all, facts about defense systems, server passwords and root directories are very bad things, if the wrong people get hold of them. (one could say the exact same thing about other facts, like nude self pictures on your phone. They are factual, and good, unless somebody hacks them and puts them online, and you don’t want them online). While it seems pedantic in the extreme, just thinking about “Facts are good things and I like them” can have much more meaning that at first glance. many facts are good, and I like them, but I sure as hell don’t want other people having them. That would be not good. But, facts relevant to public discussion are rarely if ever of that nature. Scientific facts never are. ---
**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:** [January 21, 2015, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/43 "2015-01-21T02:23:28Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > But, facts relevant to public discussion are rarely if ever of that nature. Scientific facts never are. You would think so, right? I mean, I agree with you on that, in principle, **facts about scientific issues in regard to the public are never hidden, modified or in any way**. There isn’t any deception, slanting or cherry picking of facts when it comes to something as important as the public good. Right? And we also have to trust that the people doing the gathering of data, and storing it, and presenting it are perfect in all ways, so that there can be no errors, or made up data of any kind. And no data is left out, hidden or lost, so that the actual facts, all of them are on the table. Obviously none of that applies to military secrets, or facts about computer systems, phones and other secret activities, in which case the public may never know the actual facts. But that is another arena. But back to climate change/AGW, that invisible elephant that we are told is trampling all before it. And being ignored and denied. Why would anyone deny scientific facts about something like the climate? I mean, that is the claim being made, that “these people” simply deny evidence, scientific facts, they simply refuse to look at them, or accept them, somehow they are just pretending they don’t matter. (behavior quite common when financial or military interest would be threatened by facts) So it’s human nature, and we even know from science that intelligence is no defense. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2015, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/44 "2015-01-21T02:24:46Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > I recognized the source, it’s usually attributed to [Ben Goldacre](http://dailyquoted.com/quotes/49790). You know, the [bad science dude](http://www.badscience.net/about-dr-ben-goldacre/). An even better [Goldacre](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ben_Goldacre) quote: “Repeat after me: pharma being shit does not mean magic beans cure cancer.” ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2015, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/45 "2015-01-21T02:40:10Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > You would think so, right? I mean, I agree with you on that, in principle, **facts about scientific issues in regard to the public are never hidden, modified or in any way**. There isn’t any deception, slanting or cherry picking of facts when it comes to something as important as the public good. No, I mean, scientific facts are never the kinds of facts you “don’t want other people having.” (Technological facts, maybe, that’s where military security and proprietary info come in, but that’s a different matter.) But, to say a fact is one you want or don’t want others having assumes you have it yourself in the first place. Now, in scientific research, the scientists don’t know what they have until the research has been done, and peer-reviewed, and published, and attacked and criticized and picked apart, and more research done to plug the holes so made, and the whole process done over and over again until it results in a sturdy theory that satisfies all or nearly all scientists in the field. That process may well **at some stages** involve “slanting” or “cherry picking” on the part of a proponent of a given hypothesis – but that is usually a matter of **self** -deception; the scientists wants his/her pet hypothesis to be true and is, like others, subject to confirmation bias, etc. (No scientist would ever try to sell a hypothesis he did not himself accept, unless he were a quack literally selling it, for money – and even then, quacks do appear to believe in what they’re peddling more often than not.) Well, that’s why we have a peer-review process, to catch those self-deceptions. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > Why would anyone deny scientific facts about something like the climate? I mean, that is the claim being made, that “these people” simply deny evidence, scientific facts, they simply refuse to look at them, or accept them, somehow they are just pretending they don’t matter. (behavior quite common when financial or military interest would be threatened by facts) You will find similar psychology at work when ideological or psychological interests are threatened. Creationists have no military or profit motive to deny the science of evolution, but they do have other reasons. See [Anti-science](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Antiscience). In the case of climate change, denial is based on both financial and ideological interests. Corporations who judge any remedial action would hurt their bottom line fund denialist think-tanks and denialist political candidates. Political conservatives and libertarians who judge any remedial action would essentially be governmental action, and therefore bad, and expensive, therefore bad, seek out and/or propagate denialist arguments for confirmation. ---
**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:** [January 21, 2015, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/46 "2015-01-21T02:41:00Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > You would think so, right? I mean, I agree with you on that, in principle, **facts about scientific issues in regard to the public are never hidden, modified or in any way**. There isn’t any deception, slanting or cherry picking of facts when it comes to something as important as the public good. > > Right? > > And we also have to trust that the people doing the gathering of data, and storing it, and presenting it are perfect in all ways, so that there can be no errors, or made up data of any kind. And no data is left out, hidden or lost, so that the actual facts, all of them are on the table. > > Obviously none of that applies to military secrets, or facts about computer systems, phones and other secret activities, in which case the public may never know the actual facts. But that is another arena. > > But back to climate change/AGW, that invisible elephant that we are told is trampling all before it. And being ignored and denied. > > Why would anyone deny scientific facts about something like the climate? I mean, that is the claim being made, that “these people” simply deny evidence, scientific facts, they simply refuse to look at them, or accept them, somehow they are just pretending they don’t matter. (behavior quite common when financial or military interest would be threatened by facts) > > So it’s human nature, and we even know from science that intelligence is no defense. Researchers like Mann are accused of pushing scientific papers (about the hockey stick) that are “abortions” as contrarians call it. Never mind that many other researches confirmed what he found and even Mann himself also got the help of an skeptic of his methods to come with an update that confirmed what he had reported earlier. (Thank goodness the “climategate” emails revealed that part of Mann joining forces with an skeptical researcher. 🙂 ) Unfortunately people that call climate scientists “nobodies” never got that memo. As for trusting the data and models we had already a team of skeptical scientists that did not trust the way climate scientists were handling it. The skeptics did an independent review of the data, using more resources and even got funding from a rich denier and in the end came to conclude that well; yes, the earth is warming and humans are mostly responsible for the current rise. > **[Summary of Findings - Berkeley Earth](https://berkeleyearth.org/archive/summary-of-findings/)** > > Our ongoing research includes the study of climate variability, extreme events, and the role of the oceans. View a three page summary of our initial project objectives and early results. A two page summary of our results to date, aimed primarily at... And so the efforts to confuse the issue are no longer seen in academia and scientific journals, they are done in the public arena. ---
**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:** [January 21, 2015, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/47 "2015-01-21T03:26:03Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > You will find similar psychology at work when ideological or psychological interests are threatened. Creationists have no military or profit motive to deny the science of evolution, but they do have other reasons. See [Anti-science](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Antiscience). Of course, and I left religion out of it, as it is an obvious example of how science and facts won’t matter. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > In the case of climate change, denial is based on both financial and ideological interests. Now here is where you have to be specific in your claim. (obviously facts won’t matter, but even so, you have to be clear on what you are saying at least) There are so many issues involved, a blanket claim is meaningless, and certainly won’t sway anyone. What do you even mean when you claim “denial of climate change”? I’m certain you aren’t accusing people of denying the climate of the world changes over time. ---
**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:** [January 21, 2015, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/48 "2015-01-21T03:41:47Z")
For example, here are a couple of “factual” papers, about two contentious issues, the recent trend in surface temperatures, and the calculated annual mean for 2014 being the hottest year ever. > [@](#): > > “Global surface temperatures have warmed more slowly over the past decade than previously expected. The media has seized this warming pause in recent weeks, and the UK’s Met Office released a three-part series of white papers looking at the causes and implications. While there is still no definitive cause identified, some researchers point to a combination of more heat going into the deep oceans and downturns in multi-decadal cycles in global temperature as the primary drivers of the pause. Others argue that a plethora of recent small volcanoes, changes in stratospheric water vapor, and a downturn in solar energy reaching the earth may also be contributing to the plateau. While few expect the pause to persist much longer, it has raised some questions about the growing divergence between observed temperatures and those predicted by climate models.” [http://static.berkeleyearth.org/memos/examining-the-pause.pdf](http://static.berkeleyearth.org/memos/examining-the-pause.pdf) Here we see a major issue with the observed data, and what some have predicted would have to happen, based on theory and computer models. > [@](#): > > While surface temperatures have generally remained fairly close to the multi-model > mean in the past, the recent pause threatens to cause surface temperatures to fall > outside the confidence interval of models in the next few years if temperatures do > not rise. The BEST calculation for the global annual land and ocean mean temperature anomaly. > [@](#): > > 1. 2014 0.596’ ±’0.049 > 2. 2010 0.586’ ±’0.045 [http://static.berkeleyearth.org/memos/Global-Warming-2014-Berkeley-Earth-Newsletter.pdf](http://static.berkeleyearth.org/memos/Global-Warming-2014-Berkeley-Earth-Newsletter.pdf) The amount “hotter” is .01 degree, with a margin of error of .049 degrees. Will these “facts” make any difference? Isn’t it much more likely, based on human nature, that skeptics will see it as confirmation of their view, while those insisting warming hasn’t even slowed, will claim global warming is still happening, just as they said it would? It’s a rhetorical question, both those events are already historic events. It’s as if facts just don’t make any difference. ---
**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:** [January 21, 2015, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/49 "2015-01-21T03:44:48Z")
Then there is this other extremely odd thing, where facts are considered to be confusing. People who use facts are accused of trying to confuse people by using facts. Or “their facts” are no good, only some facts are good. This is certainly not limited to the great debate over what is happening (and why) with our global climate. The tap dancing comedy over which facts can be trusted is quite amazing. ---
**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:** [January 21, 2015, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/50 "2015-01-21T03:50:47Z")
Of course what FX is posting there is only going back to confuse others, it is not really clear that there was a pause and Berkeley Earth already commented that “few expect the pause to persist much longer” because the ones that want to confuse the issue always go for the noise and not the trend: > **[It’s the Trend, Stupid](https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/01/20/its-the-trend-stupid-3/)** > > Both NASA and NOAA report 2014 as the hottest year on record. Despite the new #1, neither the news itself nor the response to it has surprised me. > [@](#): > > But besides just rising with the trend, temperature fluctuates up and down from year to year; hence the dashed red lines above and below the red trend line showing the likely range. Assuming global warming continues without slowing down, we would have expected this: > > This is what actually happened: > > Just what was expected, that’s what actually happened. > > That kinda lets the air out of any idea that global warming has slowed down — the data simply do not support it. But in a clever misinterpretation, one ultimately rooted in cherry-picking, there are those who actually claim that the data do demonstrate global warming has slowed down. > > Unbelievable as it may seem, they actually do. While the data have followed the global-warming-continues-without-slowing-down pattern just about as closely as one could have imagined — this year right down the middle — they still insist that global warming has slowed down. They like to call it a “pause.” > > The reaction of the “pausemaniacs” to the record hottest year has mostly been protest. Breakin’ some temperature record just don’t mean a gosh-darn thing worth payin’ no attention to. It only broke the record by a little bit. And besides, it ain’t the individual years, record hot or not, that count, it’s the pause that counts — a record hottest year don’t end the pause! > > Methinks they do protest too much. Perhaps they fear that a record year really does threaten their beloved “pause.” But that’s not the real threat at all, it’s the fact that the data have followed the global-warming-continues-without-slowing-down pattern just about as closely as one could have expected, because all the while they’ve been bellowing about the pause that never was. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2015, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/51 "2015-01-21T03:58:50Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Then there is this other extremely odd thing, where facts are considered to be confusing. People who use facts are accused of trying to confuse people by using facts. Or “their facts” are no good, only some facts are good. > > This is certainly not limited to the great debate over what is happening (and why) with our global climate. > > The tap dancing comedy over which facts can be trusted is quite amazing. Okay, 1,300+ posts of this stuff in another thread is not enough for you? ---
**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:** [January 21, 2015, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/52 "2015-01-21T04:07:40Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Okay, 1,300+ posts of this stuff in another thread is not enough for you? Based on experience, I am quite certain facts won’t make the slightest bit of difference, to somebody who has already decided on the truth. The question is, if facts won’t matter, and opinions certainly won’t make any difference, then what will? Will anything matter? Those questions are in the OP here. I mean, you have somebody claiming it’s time to abandon facts as a tool in the climate debate. Do you agree with that? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2015, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/53 "2015-01-21T04:28:00Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Based on experience, I am quite certain facts won’t make the slightest bit of difference, to somebody who has already decided on the truth. > > The question is, if facts won’t matter, and opinions certainly won’t make any difference, then what will? Will anything matter? > > Those questions are in the OP here. I mean, you have somebody claiming it’s time to abandon facts as a tool in the climate debate. Do you agree with that? Okay, let’s try this. If your position is that facts matter to you, please identify for me one or two facts that you find supportive of the AGW argument. I mean, surely not every fact argues against that position. Lacking the jaundiced eye of your counterparts, you must be in a good position to fairly evaluate each fact. (I must admit to going into this exercise being a little dubious, because I’ve seen you introduce “it’s cold outside my house today” (essentially) as a fact supporting your position.) ---
**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:** [January 21, 2015, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/54 "2015-01-21T04:56:10Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Okay, 1,300+ posts of this stuff in another thread is not enough for you? Well, he is trying to be “in the middle of the road” but as usual he is even failing at that and not really the best spoke person for impartiality when one looks at his past work. When looking at what are the facts I do see the current consensus as giving us another clue of who is playing loose with the facts, specially the contrarian politicians and pundits out there. To me the many surveys that shows that virtually all scientists accept the evidence in a field leads to another logical conclusion: even if there are less scientists that are conservative and/or Republican the numbers still tell us also that virtually all conservative climate scientists agree that the facts are on the side of the ones that propose that humans are currently changing the climate with their emissions. The few exceptions left are indeed letting their biases triumph over the evidence. Some of the few contrarian scientists left in the Climate Change issue fall for both ideology and religion like Roy Spencer. [https://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2008/07/28/yes-roy-spencer-is-a-creationist/](https://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2008/07/28/yes-roy-spencer-is-a-creationist/) ---
**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:** [January 21, 2015, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/55 "2015-01-21T16:00:26Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Okay, let’s try this. If your position is that facts matter to you, please identify for me one or two facts that you find supportive of the AGW argument. You have to explain, and I mean in a scientific way, what YOU mean by “[the AGW argument](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_AGW_argument&action=edit&redlink=1)”. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2015, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/56 "2015-01-21T16:23:26Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > You have to explain, and I mean in a scientific way, what YOU mean by “[the AGW argument](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_AGW_argument&action=edit&redlink=1)”. What was that link in aid of? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2015, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/57 "2015-01-21T16:30:57Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > You have to explain, and I mean in a scientific way, what YOU mean by “[the AGW argument](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_AGW_argument&action=edit&redlink=1)”. So, that’s a no, then? You don’t seem a very good ambassador of the land of the Unbiased Fact Evaluator. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2015, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/58 "2015-01-21T16:32:07Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > For many years I have stated “Facts are the last thing that will matter”. So this is why you refuse to believe global warming is a man-made catastrophe? Good to know. For someone like you who works for the oil companies, this is quite a revelation ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2015, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/59 "2015-01-21T16:32:35Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Now here is where you have to be specific in your claim. (obviously facts won’t matter, but even so, you have to be clear on what you are saying at least) Regarding the financial interest, see [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_action_on_climate_change). ExxonMobil etc. would not be spending all this money on think-tanks unless they perceived the issue affecting their profits – would they? Regarding the ideological interest – well, I don’t need to explain that, do I? One hears it all the time, the notion that AGW is a hoax concocted as a pretext to expand government or usher in socialism or the NWO. See [Global warming conspiracy theory](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_warming_conspiracy_theory). > [@FXMastermind](#): > > There are so many issues involved, a blanket claim is meaningless, and certainly won’t sway anyone. What do you even mean when you claim “denial of climate change”? I’m certain you aren’t accusing people of denying the climate of the world changes over time. :rolleyes::dubious::mad: **Of course, and as you know,** I mean denial that Earth’s present global warming is 1) real, 2) dangerous, and 3) anthropogenic. ---
**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:** [January 21, 2015, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/60 "2015-01-21T16:40:14Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > What was that link in aid of? Obviously, he meant to post [this link](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change), and was not in any way trying to evade a straightforward question or anything. 😉 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293.md?page=4)