&gt;&gt;What Gunn et al. show is that the accumulation of consistent (non-noisy) evidence can reverse one’s confidence surprisingly quickly.<p>I know this comment won&#x27;t be accepted very well here on HN, but I think this is one of the reasons most people who don&#x27;t believe in climate change don&#x27;t. Science, and the subsequent reporting on it, has been consistently reporting for the past 20 years that climate change is real, and it&#x27;s worse than we thought. Every few months, there is a new study being widely reported saying that X new evidence is proving that things will be much worse than we thought. If there was a study every once in a while that said X study about climate change was wrong, and we didn&#x27;t consider Y factor, but climate change still seems to be headed in a dangerous direction, then I think people might be more willing to accept the thesis.<p>Of course, the paper doesn&#x27;t suggest that we are wrong when we suspect systemic error, and skeptics of climate change may very well be wrong, but maybe this will help others understand their skepticism.