The phrasing of the question is odd and hints at rhetoric instead of curiosity as intention. What if it's only 99.99% sure that CO2 is the reason for climate c

The phrasing of the question is odd and hints at rhetoric instead of curiosity as intention. What if it's only 99.99% sure that CO2 is the reason for climate change? What about 90%? No need to act until we bring that up to 100%? What's with the fixation on 0.04% as a number? Things can't have huge impact unless numbers are also big? I don't want to offend, but that's honestly third grade mentality. There's surprise about small things having little impact, and then there's denial hidden as feigned curiosity. Especially when the answers are directly available from much more credible sources than random internet posters. Compare with: "Has it yet been absolutely proven 100% that the lead comprising 0.03% [hypothetically - for reference, this is 100000x the FDA limit] of our food intake is the main culprit/control knob which controls brain development?" No, it actually isn't the "main" control knob. And our bodies are also complex with many feedback loops. And no study will ever reach p = 0. And it's a really small number. And yet we have made "extremely huge decisions" regarding what fuels we allow, what tests food have to undergo etc...