# 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:** 5
**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, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/81 "2015-01-21T23:37:59Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Oh? Then why are they making such a fuss over 2014 being the ‘hottest year’? Because as you said it is the empirical fact, **as I also mentioned**. It is good to point at the obvious, but that is not the whole history and it has to be pointed out that what you explained is the line of the researchers and climate scientists. In the end it is less helpful to the so called skeptics as the ones that look at the obfuscations showed already. And the bottom line remain, it is not likely that when an el nino appears that we will see cooling, the warming that is coming from the CO2 and other global warming gases in the atmosphere will still be there and there is no good mechanism from the contrarians to expect otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2015, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/82 "2015-01-21T23:41:02Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Because as you said it is the empirical fact, **as I also mentioned**. It is good to point at the obvious, but that is not the whole history and it has to be pointed out that what you explained is the line of the researchers and climate scientists. In the end it is less helpful to the so called skeptics as the ones that look at the obfuscations showed already. It is NOT a fact. The measurement error is larger than the effect they measured. That very specifically means that there is uncertainty that the result is correct. This is pretty basic stuff. ---
**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 22, 2015, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/83 "2015-01-22T00:10:49Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > From what I can tell, given the caveats in the actual scientific paper, you could write the following headlines, all of which would be technically correct: > > “New NASA data fails to find increased warming outside the margin of error.” Only that FX already linked to what former skeptic Professor Muller did report, the warming **could** be in danger of falling outside the margin error (meaning that it was not yet outside the margin of error) but now it is not. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > “New NASA data confirms that there is no statistically-meaningful increase in temperate over the past several years.” Not good to ignore the big picture, it is not significant that 2014 might be the hottest year in over 160 years of accurate measuring? 2014 might be number 2 or even number 3, It is really underwhelming to ignore that 9 out of the 10 hottest years in 160+ years worldwide happen to fall in the last 20 years. In any case the analysis made recently shows where researchers are coming from: it is significant when looking at the temperature record with change point analysis: > **[RealClimate: Recent global warming trends: significant or paused or what?](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/12/recent-global-warming-trends-significant-or-paused-or-what/)** > > RealClimate: As the World Meteorological Organisation WMO has just announced that “The year 2014 is on track to be the warmest, or one of the warmest years on record”, it is timely to have a look at recent global temperature changes. I’m going to use... > [@](#): > > It is the proper statistical technique for subdividing a time series into sections with different linear trends. Rather than hand-picking some intervals to look at, like I did above, this algorithm objectively looks for times in the data where the trend changes in a significant way. It will scan through the data and try out every combination of years to check whether you can improve the fit with the data by putting change points there. The optimal solution found for the global temperature data is 3 change points, approximately in the years 1912, 1940 and 1970. There is no way you can get the model to produce 4 change points, even if you ask it to – the solution does not converge then, says Cahill. There simply is no further significant change in global warming trend, not in 1998 nor anywhere else. > > In summary: that the warming since 1998 “is not significant” is completely irrelevant. This warming is real (in all global surface temperature data sets), and it is factually wrong to claim there has been no warming since 1998. There has been further warming despite the extreme cherry pick of 1998. > > What is relevant, in contrast, is that the warming since 1998 is not significantly less than the long-term warming. So while there has been a slowdown, this slowdown is not significant in the sense that it is not outside of what you expect from time to time due to year-to-year natural variability, which is always present in this time series. > > Given the warm temperature of 2014, we already see the meme emerge in the media that “the warming pause is over”. That is doubly wrong – there never was a significant pause to start with, and of course a single year couldn’t tell us whether there has been a change in trend. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > “New NASA data shows that the temperature in 2014 is statistically the same as it was in 2005 and 2010.” Warmer than the past decades, the reality is that the effort observed by contrarians is to remove the context. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > "New NASA data confirms continuance of global warming ‘pause’. > > All of them would be misleading and tendentious, because the paper actually does provide some evidence that the earth is still warming, even if we have no idea if 2014 was the ‘hottest year’. Indeed, and as I said, missing a lot of context should not be allowed for the good reasons you mention. Hence the need to add to what you mention here. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > But I don’t see how they are any more misleading than saying “New evidence shows 2014 was the hottest year on record”, because new evidence shows no such thing. Ok this is really silly, are you willing to declare that the scientists are not looking at the recent data to report that? Or that they are inventing it? > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > This happens all the time in climate science because it is so politicized. It was not supposed to be, but here the context once again shows that you are ignoring the full history, there was a time when Republicans and conservatives listened to science, but powerful groups made it political by equating science with political opinions. FRONTLINE: Climate of Doubt > **[Climate of Doubt | FRONTLINE](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/climate-of-doubt/?)** > > FRONTLINE explores the massive shift in public opinion on climate change. Transcript: > **[Climate of Doubt | FRONTLINE](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/climate-of-doubt/transcript/?)** > > FRONTLINE explores the massive shift in public opinion on climate change. > [@](#): > > FRONTLINE goes inside the groups who shifted the direction of the climate change debate. ---
**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 22, 2015, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/84 "2015-01-22T00:23:52Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > It is NOT a fact. The measurement error is larger than the effect they measured. That very specifically means that there is uncertainty that the result is correct. This is pretty basic stuff. Basic stuff to claim so then one can throw a big misleading bone to deniers. It is not likely that there will be much a change on what the researchers declared today when going forward. And there is the fact that declaring 2014 as the warmest year in instrumental record history is not just based on what USA researchers found: > **[2014 Officially Hottest Year on Record](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2014-officially-hottest-year-on-record/)** > > The Japanese declare 2014 one for the record books thanks to global warming > [@](#): > > It’s official: 2014 has taken the title of hottest year on record. That ranking comes courtesy of data released Monday by the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA), the first of four major global temperature recordkeepers to release their data for last year. > > The upward march of the world’s average temperature since 1891 is a trademark of human-influenced global warming with 2014 being the latest stop on the climb. All 10 of the hottest years have come since 1998. > > The average temperature was 1.1°F above the 20th century average according to JMA’s data. That edges 1998, the previous warmest year, by about 0.1°F. > > One big difference between 2014 and 1998 is that the latter was on the tail end of a super El Niño, which has the tendency to spike temperatures. In comparison, 2014 was the year of the almost El Niño. ---
**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 22, 2015, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/85 "2015-01-22T00:24:01Z")
**Sam Stone** , you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2015, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/86 "2015-01-22T02:51:43Z")
Really? Measurement Systems Analysis is one of the things I do in my day job. How about you? Ever done a gage R&R? An MSA study? In control theory one of the challenges is removing the noise of measurement error so you can find the effect. If your signal is below the noise threshold, you cannot draw any conclusions from it. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2015, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/87 "2015-01-22T02:55:15Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Basic stuff to claim so then one can throw a big misleading bone to deniers. This sounds suspiciously like you are saying it’s okay for such press releases to shade the truth, because otherwise it might give your opponents ammunition against your beliefs. I think we just found another perfect example of motivated reasoning. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2015, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/88 "2015-01-22T02:56:39Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > **Sam Stone** , you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. Just out of curiosity, do you think James Hansen knows what he’s talking about? I was directly quoting his paper. ---
**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 22, 2015, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/89 "2015-01-22T03:04:53Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Really? Measurement Systems Analysis is one of the things I do in my day job. How about you? Ever done a gage R&R? An MSA study? In control theory one of the challenges is removing the noise of measurement error so you can find the effect. If your signal is below the noise threshold, you cannot draw any conclusions from it. If one would concentrate **only** on the recent years, and that is why contrarians always concentrate on that, ignoring the big picture. As the Japanese reported and NOAA and NASA did your experience is fine, but not as impressive when them and other experts report and conclude about what the data is telling us. > **[Tricks used by David Rose, denier "journalist", to deceive](https://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/01/tricks-used-by-david-rose-denier.html)** > > Global warming & climate change. Eavesdropping on climate science deniers, their weird pseudo-science and crazy conspiracy theories. > [@](#): > > The 38% number is the probability that 2014 is the hottest year compared to the probability that 2010 and other hot years are the hottest. 2010, the next hottest year, only got a 23% probability by comparison. Here is the table showing out of 100%, what the different probabilities are: > > You can see how David misused the 38% number. In fact the odds of it being the hottest year on record are the highest of the lot. As the head of NASA/GISS tweeted: “The uncertainties were directly addressed.” But as it happens many times in discussions like this one the uncertainty is not the friend of the contrarians. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2015, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/90 "2015-01-22T03:37:48Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > If one would concentrate **only** on the recent years, and that is why contrarians always concentrate on that, ignoring the big picture. The press release is talking about the results of current research - not the long term trend. It was clearly misleading. Why are you bringing long-term trends into this? That’s not what the paper or the press release were about. It was more of a ‘current findings validate our theory about the long-term trend’ type press release, when in fact the current findings are that the temperature measurements of 2014 are statistically equal to the measurements in 2005 and 2010, and that it is significantly lower than the models predicted. NASA’s press release turns the finding on its head - a perfect example of how to mislead without lying by leaving out crucial information. And I really wish you would stop moving the goalposts. I’m not talking in general about global warming theory - I was using the fact that a misleading press release gets a pass from the AGW crowd so long as it misleads in the ‘right direction’ as an example of motivated reasoning. That’s all. To back up my point about it being misleading, I showed that in the original paper there are many proper caveats and warnings about not reading too much into very noisy data. But the official press release does just that, claiming that 2014 is the warmest year on record as a fact when in fact there is much uncertainty and so much noise that no conclusions whatsoever can be drawn from the dataset we’re talking about. Indeed, the paper spends a lot of time speculating on why the GC models might be wrong, what might be causing the ‘pause’ in warming, etc. None of that makes it into the press release. That was the limit of my criticism. But now apparently I am being forced to defend some random blogger against another random blogger, or make a stand as to whether it’s likely that global warming is happening, or whatever. You do this all the time - when faced with a specific criticism you can’t refute, you instead revert to generalities, claims about oil money distorting science, what the models say, etc. By the way, that site you linked to further makes my point. They go after some guy because he’s using words like ‘admitted’ to describe scientist comments, and that apparently is beyond the pale because it suggests that the scientist was trying to hide something. Fair enough, if trivial. But the elephant in the room is that NASA also used misleading language in its press release, but all those guys can think to do is to defend them against criticism regardless of its merits. Again… Motivated reasoning. And by the way, the constant use of ALL CAPS and **Bold Text** along with the language and tone makes that site sound like it’s run by a crazed loon. I wouldn’t use that as a site too often if I were you. It doesn’t make your side look very good. > [@](#): > > As the head of NASA/GISS tweeted: “The uncertainties were directly addressed.” In the press release? I linked to it. Show me where. If you’re talking about the actual paper, you’re making my point. I’m not claiming the science is bad - the paper appears to have all the proper caveats against over-use of their conclusion. My point was simply that the bureaucrats and politicians take those papers, strip out all the caveats, and then present the conclusions as fact. And they know damned well that it’s the press release with the attention-grabbing headline that’s going to be sprayed all over the news media and the internet, and not one person in a thousand will bother to look up the paper or the press conferences to get a fuller picture. Soon ‘everyone will know’ that 2014 is the hottest year on record. It will be ‘settled science’ in debates like this. The caveats and uncertainties will remain buried in the papers outside of the public debate. ---
**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 22, 2015, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/91 "2015-01-22T03:47:42Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > In the press release? I linked to it. Show me where. If you’re talking about the actual paper, you’re making my point. That is not what Gavin Schmith was talking about. Read it again. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > I’m not claiming the science is bad - the paper appears to have all the proper caveats against over-use of their conclusion. My point was simply that the bureaucrats and politicians take those papers, strip out all the caveats, and then present the conclusions as fact. And they know damned well that it’s the press release with the attention-grabbing headline that’s going to be sprayed all over the news media and the internet, and not one person in a thousand will bother to look up the paper or the press conferences to get a fuller picture. And as I pointed before, so far it does looks that the idea of many conservatives is to push uncertainty in favor of not doing much about controlling emissions, but the reality is that the uncertainty is not a friend of the contrarians. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Soon ‘everyone will know’ that 2014 is the hottest year on record. It will be ‘settled science’ in debates like this. The caveats and uncertainties will remain buried in the papers outside of the public debate. As the Japanese reported it too with their own research and other science groups agree, I think that you do protest too much. ---
**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 22, 2015, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/92 "2015-01-22T04:11:42Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > NASA’s press release turns the finding on its head - a perfect example of how to mislead without lying by leaving out crucial information. Of course, but it’s so much more complicated than that. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > And I really wish you would stop moving the goalposts. Just out of curiosity do you actually think that will happen? The tap dancing and side shows are par for the course it seems, when you want to discuss any specific thing. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > That was the limit of my criticism. But now apparently I am being forced to defend some random blogger against another random blogger, or make a stand as to whether it’s likely that global warming is happening, or whatever. You do this all the time - when faced with a specific criticism you can’t refute, you instead revert to generalities, claims about oil money distorting science, what the models say, etc. Thank you for simply stating what happens all the time. It’s actually a good tactic for avoiding answering a point. Just throw out so much flak, everything might go down in flames. For example, somebody asked what “facts” are against my view of things, which is an absurdity. In science facts can be viewed as for or against a theory, they either support a hypothesis, or disprove a theory, and certainly people attack any evidence that they think will show them to be wrong. Pretending this doesn’t happen is also an absurdity. For example, the recent global trend for land and ocean temperatures. > [@](#): > > The hiatus in the rise in global temperatures could last for another 10 years, according to new research. > > Scientists have struggled to explain the so-called pause that began in 1999, despite ever increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. > > The latest theory says that a naturally occurring 30-year cycle in the Atlantic Ocean is behind the slowdown. > **[Global warming slowdown 'could last another decade'](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28870988)** > > The hiatus in the rise in global temperatures is being caused by the Atlantic Ocean and could last another 10 years, say researchers. > [@](#): > > As the JMA graph shows, there has been no “hiatus” or “pause” in warming. In fact, there has not even been a slowdown. [2014 Hottest Year On Record Globally by Far Says Japan Meteorological Agency - Our World](http://ourworld.unu.edu/en/2014-hottest-year-on-record-globally-by-far-says-japan-meteorological-agency) > [@](#): > > Statistician Tamino shows that in none of the global temperature data sets (neither for the surface nor the satellite MSU data) has there recently been as statistically significant slowdown in warming trend. In other words: the variation seen in short-term trends is all within what one expects due to short-term natural variability. - See more at: [RealClimate: Recent global warming trends: significant or paused or what?](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/12/recent-global-warming-trends-significant-or-paused-or-what/#sthash.44j6lqup.dpuf) > [@](#): > > In a recent edition of NASA’s “Ask a Climate Scientist” video series, scientist Joshua Willis stands in front of a black screen, makes a few goofy faces and gives a brief answer to what has become a common question about climate science. > > “A lot of people ask me: ‘Has there been a pause in global warming because, like, temperatures aren’t increasing as fast as they were a decade ago?’” Willis says. > > “And I always say, you know, paws are for kittens and puppies, because global warming is definitely still increasing,” [Has Global Warming Paused? | Scientific American](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/has-global-warming-paused/) > [@](#): > > For the past 15+ years, there has been no increase in global average surface temperature, which has been referred to as a ‘hiatus’ in global warming. [Causes and implications of the pause - Climate Etc.](http://judithcurry.com/2014/03/04/causes-and-implications-of-the-pause/) [List compiled of reasons for the pause](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/11/list-of-excuses-for-the-pause-in-global-warming-is-now-up-to-52/) (WUWT blog, this does not mean an endorsement of the blog, anymore than linking to realclimate is an endorsement) [Updated list of 63 excuses for the 18-26 year ‘pause’ in global warming](http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/07/updated-list-of-29-excuses-for-18-year.html) [And from the MET Office](http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/0/Paper2_recent_pause_in_global_warming.PDF) > [@](#): > > The recent pause in global warming (2): > What are the potential causes? Is it any wonder there might be some confusion, some uncertainty, when one wades into the stinking bog that passes for science on blogs? The MET and the BBC can’t easily be dismissed as “not good facts”, nor can the satellite data. But of course it is. This is an example of why “facts” don’t matter. At the exact same time there are at least 64 “reasons” to explain the pause in warming, there is also a constant barrage of voices telling us there is no pause, that in fact global warming hasn’t even slowed, much less paused. ---
**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 22, 2015, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/93 "2015-01-22T04:22:51Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Is it any wonder there might be some confusion, some uncertainty, when one wades into the stinking bog that passes for science on blogs? The MET and the BBC can’t easily be dismissed as “not good facts”, nor can the satellite data. But of course it is. > > This is an example of why “facts” don’t matter. At the exact same time there are at least 64 “reasons” to explain the pause in warming, there is also a constant barrage of voices telling us there is no pause, that in fact global warming hasn’t even slowed, much less paused. As usual, you are doing the mistake of thinking that blogs like Hockeystick or WUWT do science, they do not. Indeed the main idea on that post is to seed doubt. Of course the BBC also did not find as much to complaint as many contrarians did about the NASA/GISS and NOAA reports. > **[2014 warmest year on record, say US researchers](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30852588)** > > The 12 months of 2014 were the warmest on record, with global temperatures 0.68C (1.24F) above the long-term average, say US government scientists. > [@](#): > > Responding to the reports’ findings, Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at the London School of Economics, said: > > "The new global temperature record announced today completely exposes the myth that global warming has stopped. > > “There is mounting evidence all around the world that the Earth is warming and the climate is changing in response to rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.” > > A small but vocal number of people maintain that the observed temperature anomalies are not the result of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities warming the planet. > > It is also a view that is held by a number of politicians, making them reluctant to introduce regulations or legislation aimed at cutting emissions. > > He added: "No politician can afford to ignore this overwhelming scientific evidence or claim that global warming is a hoax. > > “Climate change is happening, and as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, national scientific academies and scientific organisations across the world have all concluded [that] human activities, particularly burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, are primarily responsible.” ---
**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 22, 2015, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/94 "2015-01-22T04:28:13Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Just out of curiosity, do you think James Hansen knows what he’s talking about? I was directly quoting his paper. Yes. Do you? Then refer back to the phrase immediately preceding the one you have bolded and are handwaving so hard about. The same guy wrote that whole sentence. Until you figure out how both pieces of the sentence can be true, you will continue to have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about. Have you ever done modeling using hierarchical linear regression? Generalized estimating equations? Growth mixture modeling? Latent class analysis? Ever published your findings in peer reviewed journals? Ever been a peer reviewer? You’re engaging in the very kind of motivated reading/obfuscating behavior that you appeared to be decrying a short time ago. ---
**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 22, 2015, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/95 "2015-01-22T04:29:34Z")
Speaking of tap dancing, one wonders when **FXMastermind** with acknowledge that **Sam** was wrong on what the oil companies were doing regarding alternative energy and that other years are less likely to be as warm as 2014. And the Met office reported on their notes about the pause that: “There is substantial evidence from other components of the climate system, beyond the global mean surface temperature, that the Earth has continued to warm over the last decade.” Of course that item was mentioned many many times before in previous discussions, but contrarians are the ones ignoring it. ---
**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 22, 2015, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/96 "2015-01-22T04:40:18Z")
And it is also noticeable that what the Japanese reported about 2014 was ignored too, it is likely that the MET office will also agree soon with most of the other climate research groups: [http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/2014-temperatures](http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/2014-temperatures) > [@](#): > > December 2014 - Preliminary figures show that 2014 is on course to be the warmest year on record, both globally and for the UK. This report puts the climate of 2014 into context, drawing on observations and basic science to understand the drivers of the record setting year. It also examines the role of human influence, an analysis of the El Niño conditions and what this year means in the context of the ‘pause’ in global warming. > [@](#): > > Global average sea-surface temperatures in 2014 have been unusually warm, particularly in the latter half of the year. Record warm years in the global temperature record are frequently associated with the temporary warming influence of the El Niño/Southern Oscillation, but despite early signs of a developing El Niño this year, it has failed to grow beyond a weak signal. This was due to the persistence of above average temperatures in the tropical West Pacific Ocean, which stifled the atmospheric response that is necessary for an El Niño to mature. In 2014 the warmth of the northern mid-latitude and tropical western Pacific Ocean are likely to have made a substantial contribution to the global mean temperature and not El Niño. > > The changes seen in the surface temperatures of the Pacific Ocean might suggest that the ‘pause’ in global mean surface warming is coming to an end. There is as yet no evidence to support this, but new research has continued to reinforce the role of decadal variations in ocean heat uptake as an important contributor to the ‘pause’. Whilst the Pacific Ocean is still regarded as a major driver, the role of the Atlantic and Southern Oceans has also been highlighted. > > Finally, the evidence for the influence of human emissions of greenhouse gases on this year’s likely global mean surface temperature record is irrefutable. Even for the UK itself, the current record temperatures have been shown to be 10 times more likely because of human activities. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2015, 8:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/97 "2015-01-22T08:40:00Z")
The Japanese have nothing to do with it. The press release was a summary of NASA and NOAA research. What is it about this that you aren’t getting, exactly? ---
**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 22, 2015, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/98 "2015-01-22T13:24:23Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > The Japanese have nothing to do with it. The press release was a summary of NASA and NOAA research. What is it about this that you aren’t getting, exactly? The point that you miss is that independently from NASA/GISS NOAA and very likely the MET office the The Japan Meteorological Agency announced that 2014 was the hottest year in more than 120 years of record-keeping. It is only logical to realize that the uncertainty you want to make as the only guiding reason for telling us otherwise is less likely and as I said before: uncertainty is not really the friend of the contrarian. It still tell us what the probabiilities are and they point to the safer say so that 2014 was indeed the warmest year on record. And the conclusion remains: The evidence for the influence of human emissions of greenhouse gases on this year’s likely global mean surface temperature record is irrefutable. And we should had controlled emissions yesterday. ---
**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 22, 2015, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/99 "2015-01-22T16:24:03Z")
A common way to avoid responding to facts, is to change the rules, move the goalpost, or just ignore any fact you don’t like. Or even worse, change your story so the new fact, which would make you wrong, somehow now makes you right. ---
**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 22, 2015, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/100 "2015-01-22T17:10:08Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > A common way to avoid responding to facts, is to change the rules, move the goalpost, or just ignore any fact you don’t like. Or even worse, change your story so the new fact, which would make you wrong, somehow now makes you right. Of course, that is why one has to look at the experts or good sources of information that also are investigating constantly to find if a group like NASA or NOAA are wrong, as it turns out, there not many good pickings among contrarians to support the idea that NASA or NOAA are doing it wrong as the BBC reported… Unless you are trowing the BBC also under the bus now that they did not find much to complain about this like the contrarian sources did. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293.md?page=6)