https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
If it's a range of 90-100% instead of 99%, is that supposed to further the argument one way or the other?
If we're to believe this article, tards like everyone on this forum are far less likely to believe in human-affected climate change than actual scientists. Is all their data bunk for reasons I don't understand? Seems like a lot of sources there...