Note that an article in the Cornell Chronicle puts the number of peer-reviewed scientific papers confirming human-caused climate change at 99.9%. https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change But this isn't an isolated claim. Here's one from the non-profit Institute of Physics saying over 99%. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966 It's not hard to find more. So I was curious how people quantify "beyond a reasonable doubt" when asked to do it numerically. Estimates seem to vary in the 90-95% range, as far as I can tell. The first reference I found anticipated why I was asking and said 95% for the purpose of comparing to Climate Change specifically: https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/legal-standards-by-the-numbers/ But let's go past that one since someone might argue (probably falsely, but we'll be generous) that the numbers were inflated to make a point. Here's one that says 98 or 99% is what most people would say: https://courts.uslegal.com/burden-of-proof/beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/ Here's one that says 90, 95, or even 99%: https://www.scribd.com/document/510535115/Preponderance-of-the-Evidence-vs-Beyond-a-Reasonable-Doubt-LegalMatch My point, I guess, is that the present numbers for scientific peer-review are within range of what most people would accept as meaning "beyond a reasonable doubt". At what point will media stop treating this as a controversy? (Don't tell me, I probably know the answer: When they're not funded by wealthy billionaires with investments in oil. Sigh.)