Last week was the hottest ever recorded – here’s why we keep smashing records

https://twitter.com/RyanMaue/status/1676391692461547522

In fact, if you read past the headlines in the articles, they also include the same caveat:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/07/0...

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/06/climate/climate-change-re...

The NYT article buries the fact by making it seem like they were only presenting data that far back, but it is literally in the first sentence of the WP article... directly contradicting the very same article's headline.

For example, lets say a study finds Tylenol reduces fevers, an anecdote of 'it never did for me or my friends and family' is somewhat of a relevant anectode because that would be very unlikely if the study was true.

Now lets say a study finds 'the average height in 5th grade is 5ft 4in'. And someone responds 'I am in 5th grade and I am only 5ft, the study is a screed and maliciously motivated'. That isn't a relevant anecdote because of how averages work. Just like your anecdote here.

The whole point is that science isn't a religion. Science is just forming a hypothesis, testing it, and then analyzing your results (often mathematically) to determine whether your hypothesis was supported, rejected, or if the results were inconclusive. It's a best-effort thing using the tools and methods available. It's not infallible, but it doesn't ever ask you to "believe" anything.

>blindly trust the study

No, nobody here has ever told you to blindly trust anything, I can assure you. You can always look at the study yourself and look to identify why you might not agree with their conclusions, and that's how peer review works! You can review their evidence, and analyze their logic for how they drew conclusions based on the evidence, and if you find a flaw in their reasoning or how they collected their data, then you're free to criticize it and hopefully whoever carries on that research will repeat the experiment but take your feedback into account.