Michael: Thank you for engaging.
Your 99.9999 etc seems to refer to the bare idea that there is some human causal influence on climate. Propositions like the machine learning study on elevations are definitely worth following up, but not every interesting new result carries the same degree of certainty. My point is that we must be discriminating in labeling this or that study as 99.9999% true, as opposed only likely enough to be worth further investigation. The idea that the scariest new claims are automatically those deserving the widest and least critical publicity is not a formula for responsible (or ultimately, effective) climate journalism. I hope we don’t disagree about that.