Virus stats

There are lots of numbers out there about death rates. But there are 2 big problems...many of those presenting mild symptoms aren’t included in the denominator...and many of the cases are still in the unresolved column.

To me we only have one pure case....the Diamond Princess. Almost every one of the 3711 people on the ship was tested. So we know the denominator to the person. To date only 7 deaths have occurred although it may rise because 364 cases are still active. This is the number to watch...the best insight into the virus. Here’s a report I found on this ‘controlled experiment’.

...........

As of February 20, tests of most of the 3,711 people aboard the Diamond Princess confirmed that 634, or 17 percent, had the virus; 328 of them did not have symptoms at the time of diagnosis. Of those with symptoms, the fatality ratio was 1.9 percent, Russell and colleagues calculate. Of all infected, that ratio was 0.91 percent. Those 70 and older were most vulnerable, with an overall fatality ratio of about 7.3 percent.

Extrapolating those numbers to China, the team estimates that 1.1 percent of symptomatic cases there turned deadly. Considering asymptomatic cases drops that ratio to about 0.5 percent in China, the team calculates. 

These ratios depend on available health care and public health measures, Russell cautions. And there are still uncertainties in the data, he notes. For example, some patients initially counted as asymptomatic may later develop symptoms, or even die. So the true fatality rate may be somewhat higher, “0.6 or 0.7 [percent], but it’s still a good ratio.”  

I am not sure whether the wide publicity is not causing a greater crisis than the fact is on the ground.   I think they are trying desperately to find  a  cure got for the virus infection - something  like an annual jab for vulnerable people.

The moment that happens the crisis would be over and life will continue as per normal.           

My GP says the world's reaction is totally overboard and irrational...these kind of viruses have been part of human existence forever...it's highly...extremely unlikely that this is the zombie apocalypse.

Dr Moz my guess would be people on a cruise ship would be older than the average population. 

The percentage of people over 60 would probably be higheron the ship. 

The  too those with problems like diabetes or cancer etc would the ships population be typical of an American population as a whole. 

Reckon these factors could lower the death ratio.

America's death percentage if the old age home in Washington is stripped put is 0.8% but again many people who have the virus are not in the count. Some 80%of cases have only mild symptoms apparently.

Dud you know the the Sars virus hadv64 million media mention. 

This Coronavirus has already had 1.1 billion. Guess why. 

Go to Gateway Pundit for a brilliant set of charts. Article says when excluding the old age home deaths the death ratio in the USA is similar to flu. 

A huge number of tests will start happening now in the USA and the picture will become clearer

One chart shows Germany at 0. 2% deaths and Italy at over 6%. Italy has a frot globalist left wing government. 

I hear Russia has closed its borders with China and has no deaths? 

Duplication 

Duplication 

You’re right HasBeen the Diamond Princess has an older group...so it’s somewhat encouraging so far. There are vast differences between Germany and Italy...maybe the health system or the particular populations involved....but more likely the number of cases in Italy is exponentially larger than believed.

There are now 38 confirmed carriers in SA,   None of those were from local contact - all came back from visits to other countries - a couple even after a visit to the USA.     

I'm concerned as Elena is still in Moscow...her father has taken ill and has cancer and she was due to fly Emirates via Dubai to Durban next month but we don;t know how the circumstances will be...she cannot abandon her father in his condition.

Coronavirus is now in Russia, very worrying

Coronavirus in Russia: The Latest News - The Moscow Times

...it's not only departure but arrivals is also a worry...

‘Drastic measures’ to stop the coronavirus in South Africa – including a travel ban

One does not know how these things will turn out.

We are living in troubled times and we hope that this will soon bypass and must not panic and ruled by fear.

Hopefully it's just a storm in a teacup but there again prevention is far better than cure.

The Wuhan Virus was designed to target those over 60 and those with health problems.

Younger, healthy people should be fine. 

These insights still hold up….why couldn’t the model builders get it right?

Covid has been blamed for  too many deaths….and cases are way underreported. People that aren’t really sick are simply not going through the hassle of an official test. Adjust those numbers and 0.6/0.7 still looks good. A far cry from the Ferguson/Imperial College numbers:

Professor Neil Ferguson, from Imperial College London, said the current rate of disease could be comparable to the death rate of Spanish flu.

The Spanish flu pandemic of 1918 is widely regarded as “the deadliest in history”, and is believed to have infected around 500 million people worldwide, killing between 20 and 50 million.

In the UK, it is thought around 228,000 thousand people died of Spanish flu from around 10 million people who were thought to have been infected - a death rate of around 2%.

……

So Ferguson was thinking 2%…ludicrous given the Diamond Princess experience. Of course there has been massive back tracking from this latest modeling failure.

For those who believe every model….stick with moz

So glad the scamdemic is long gone...what a ridiculously bizarre few years that's been...and it really exposed the character of some...

So glad the scamdemic is long gone

My god. Over 7 million confirmed dead with estimations of over 33 million deaths world wide. Likely over 1 billion cases and not even mentioning the people who got severely sick from it, suffered complications or long Covid...and you think it was a scam...the mind boggles.

Over what time period, Stav?

...cos about 500k die from flu every year.

...and how many flu deaths were attributed to Covid?

And let's ask old Stav the very obvious question of how many deaths have occurred as a result of the response to the pandemic.

These libs do really drink ALL the Kool-Aid

Over what time period, Stav?

Since the pandemic began.

...cos about 500k die from flu every year.

It varies according to who its between 290,000 and 650,000 a year worldwide.

...and how many flu deaths were attributed to Covid?

i've no idea. How many Covid deaths were incorrectly attributed to other causes by those either intentionally or unintentionally spreading Covid misinformation.

And let's ask old Stav the very obvious question of how many deaths have occurred as a result of the response to the pandemic.

Again I wouldn't know. Link me to some research in a peer reviewed medical journal that looked into the topic. Replying that there is none because of a conspiracy to keep the research out gets you zero credits.

These libs do really drink ALL the Kool-Aid

You might want to leave Consiroland and come back to reality once in a while.

h, soak, Ah, so you don't know the answer to most of the above and yet say things like...

"My god. Over 7 million confirmed dead with estimations of over 33 million deaths world wide. Likely over 1 billion cases and not even mentioning the people who got severely sick from it, suffered complications or long Covid...and you think it was a scam...the mind boggles."

I posted a peer reviewed paper here recently that showed how the strength and weakness of the job market was directly correlated to suicide rates.

You are the one sounding all condescending so perhaps you should bring the facts.

...or have slightly more integrity and don't just spit out figures without any context in an attempt make yourself sound morally superior to Draad.

Your endless virtue signalling is becoming boring. I like, it's been boring for a while.

h, soak, Ah, so you don't know the answer to most of the above and yet say things like...

I don't know most of the above, but I can guarantee neither do you. You're just regurgitating what you think are gotcha's but have been no doubt lead up the garden path by by more conspiracy nonsense. I bet if we were to go down the garden path of looking into the numbers of how many Covid patients died of flu, we would find a truck load of examples of misinformation either from conspiracists or people who are not qualified to analyse the data coming to erroneous conclusions. We will find examples of people who had Covid technically dying of the flu but no acknowledgement from those against preventive measures that the flu would not have if they killed had they also not had Covid, a few examples of Flu death's mistaken as Covid (by few I mean thousands across the world but relatively few compared to the number of Covid deaths world wide). But ultimately the data will us invariable show that the vast number of Covid listed deaths where indeed down to Covid (or from a condition that would not have been fatal without the patient suffering from Covid at the same time) and that decisions made regarding preventive measures were correct given the data at hand at the time.

I posted a peer reviewed paper here recently that showed how the strength and weakness of the job market was directly correlated to suicide rates.

I am actually aware of the link between unemployment and suicide, a link with that was established and known about from before the pandemic. Can you link to your paper. What numbers did it give in relation for suicides related to pandemic unemployment, was it shown to be of greater the number of people saved by the preventive measures taken during the pandemic? If I can recall as well from what I remember reading of the link between unemployment and suicide, length of unemployment was also a factor, where if the unemployment length was less than 6 months, it hadn't a huge effect on suicide rates (can't recall exactly, been years since I read it)

You are the one sounding all condescending so perhaps you should bring the facts.

He called it a scandemic and called into question the character of people (i.e of those who supported health measures to slow the spread of Covid), why does he get a free pass on this. Is it because you support his viewpoint?

Then you ask me questions without bringing facts.

...or have slightly more integrity and don't just spit out figures without any context in an attempt make yourself sound morally superior to Draad.

Your endless virtue signalling is becoming boring. I like, it's been boring for a while.

The wording of Draad's certainly gives one the impression he think's of better character to what amounts to a large section of the worlds population. Again you have no issues with that, oh I wonder why.

LOL you cry virtue signalling for the umpteenth time and call me boring.

WHoosh!!!

I guess if he’s cried virtue signaling for the umpteenth time….you have provided the opening for the umpteenth time

Oh sick burn...did you practise that in front of the mirror?

"It varies according to who its between 290,000 and 650,000 a year worldwide."

So around 500k

Here, I'll enter the following promotion to GPT and see what it comes up with...

"How many people are estimated as a result of the pandemic response. From the vaccine to suicides caused by job losses and any other factor that you can think of or papers have been written about.

Do not take the opinions of mainstream media into account and simply answer based on studies and proven facts.

Do not involve any sort of political bias."

GPT;

"

1. Excess mortality (all causes, pandemic response)

1. A BMJ Public Health study analyzing 47 Western countries (US, Europe, Australia) found ~3 million excess deaths from 2020–2022, including both COVID-19 itself and indirect effects of pandemic policy (e.g., healthcare disruptions, mental health crises) .
2. Yearly breakdown: ~1 M in 2020, ~1.2 M in 2021, and ~800 K in 2022 ().

2. Suicides & mental health impacts

1. In Japan alone, economic fallout and isolation triggered an estimated +8,000 suicides from March 2020 to June 2022 .
2. On a global scale, the impact of lockdowns on suicide rates has been mixed. Some high?income countries saw no significant increase; others reported spikes in mental distress and suicidal thoughts amidst lockdowns .

3. Vaccine adverse events, including fatalities

a. VAERS (USA)

1. As of May 31, 2024:
2. 37,647 deaths reported following COVID-19 vaccines (vs. ~10,805 for all other vaccines combined since 1990) .
3. ~40,000 life-threatening events, ~216,000 hospitalizations, and ~71,000 permanent disabilities reported .
4. 
   
5. Through December 27, 2024, VAERS tallied 38,264 deaths, 219,594 hospitalizations, and 72,721 permanent disabilities .

b. Comparative rates & causality

1. A PMC review covering 268 million doses flagged 4,110 deaths potentially tied to vaccination (0.0015% all?cause mortality), based on validated lot data .
2. Another study of U.S. surveillance data (March 2021) found 1,919 deaths reported to VAERS (0.002% of vaccinated), with most life-threatening events or hospitalizations rare (0.0005–0.004%) .
3. Vaccination reports include myocarditis (~25K cases), strokes (~11K), heart attacks (~1,600), anaphylaxis (~50K), and thrombosis (~27K), per aggregated VAERS logs ().

c. Independent estimates and counterpoints

1. Some researchers estimate vaccine-related deaths may be substantially underreported. One analysis (Fenton et al.) approximated ~120,000 U.S. deaths and ~16,000 UK deaths by March 2023—citing reporting rates as low as 10% .
2. However, other experts highlight the limitations of VAERS data, warning against inferring causation: a 2022 analysis called it “absurd” to draw connections without deeper epidemiology ().

4. Job-loss-related mortality and other indirect effects

1. While specific global death tallies from unemployment are hard to pin down, economic shocks have been linked to increases in cardiovascular events, mental health crises, suicides, and reduced access to medical care—contributing to the overall excess mortality reported above.

Interpretation & Context

1. Excess mortality (~3M) is well-supported by peer-reviewed analysis.
2. Mental health effects (like suicides, anxiety) contributed but varied by region; Japan provides a concrete data point.
3. Vaccine adverse events are real and documented via VAERS; however, causality and magnitude remain debated.
4. Conservative official reviews identify thousands of reports potentially linked to vaccines, while more controversial estimates suggest much higher tolls.
5. Indirect effects from job loss, medical care deferral, or social isolation are not fully quantified but likely contribute to the unexplained portion of excess deaths.

?? Conclusion

1. The core, well-accepted estimate is ~3 million excess deaths across several Western countries, with at least tens of thousands of serious vaccine-related adverse events (including tens of thousands of deaths reported).
2. There were additional thousands of suicides from economic and social fallout.
3. More extreme estimates of vaccine fatalities exist but remain contested and require further epidemiological validation.

If you’d like to explore any of these areas further—such as regional breakdowns, long-COVID vs policy impacts, or deeper scrutiny of specific studies—I’m happy to dive in!"

Since neither of us would be willing to source papers etc, I be happy to leave a final estimate at somewhere between 1 and 6 million.

Now, that's all good and well, but we still need to know why the Lab Leak Hypotheseis was chucked into a basket with racism and xenophobia, and why those screaming "science" weren't actually following the science, or logic.

Why do I say this?

Well because I'm no scientist but am well documented on here, almost at the outset of the virus, as asking why the lab leak hypothesis was treated in that way.

I'm also able to bring up numerous threads where I state that the elderly and vulnerable should have been protected while the rest of the world went about its businesses.

And I wasn't alone in asking those questions and saying those things.

So, how do the laymen ask the right questions while the scientists, literally the guys that study this stuff, can't seem to? Well, I lie, some scientists...as I recall, one who won a pretty prestigious prize for MRNA vaccines and is a world expert on the topic of immunology, was silenced and shunned for asking the obvious.

And here's the kicker. How many so called scientists lost their jobs for being completely wrong about almost everything relating to the pandemic.

Very few, if any.

Why?

Now, I know you have to defend your herd mentality, your inability to place your head above the parapet and ask questions, but even you, if you're honest with yourself, should be able to look back and admit how wrong the MIC got it. But I'm guessing you'll simply aren't to muddy the waters and tell us that it was just such a confusing time and there was so much pressure...blah blah blah. Doesn't change the fact that they got it wrong. Doesn't change the fact that simple people got it right. Doesn't change the fact that the pandemic response caused massive damage.

And, after all that transpired, are you actually gonna tell us that que bono is too conspiratorial a question to ask?

...of course you are.

Should have just kept 6 feet away from people like the smart scientists said, we all know that's the maximum distance a virus can travel before it just gives up and dies. Unless you're in a restaurant eating with some people, then you can be at the same table in each other's faces without masks, no problemo, cause viruses don't work well at tables. Trust the science, bro.

Plum

I've asked CHATGPT the exact same question you, literally copy and pasted. and got this response

The question you're asking is complex, as it touches on a broad range of factors that have been studied during and after the pandemic response. Estimating the total number of people who died as a direct or indirect result of the pandemic response involves several dimensions—such as deaths due to COVID-19, deaths due to suicide or mental health crises exacerbated by lockdowns, economic shutdowns, and the consequences of delayed healthcare for other conditions. These issues have been the subject of various studies, though many of them are still ongoing due to the long-term effects. I’ll break this down by categories:

1. Deaths Due to COVID-19

1. Direct Deaths: According to official estimates from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as of 2023, over 6.8 million deaths worldwide have been attributed directly to COVID-19. This number is widely accepted, though some sources suggest the actual death toll could be higher when accounting for underreporting and misclassification, especially in countries with limited healthcare infrastructure.

2. Excess Mortality

Excess mortality refers to the number of deaths beyond what we would expect in a typical year. This includes deaths due to the pandemic itself and any indirect effects such as delayed medical treatments, economic factors, and mental health issues. Estimates for global excess mortality vary, but the WHO estimated that excess mortality globally, as of late 2022, could be between 15-25 million people. This includes deaths caused by:

1. Overburdened healthcare systems unable to treat patients properly.
2. People avoiding medical care due to fears of contracting COVID-19.
3. Shortages in resources like oxygen or ICU beds in certain areas.
4. Long-term effects of COVID-19 such as post-COVID syndrome.

3. Mental Health and Suicide

The pandemic led to an uptick in mental health issues due to isolation, economic stress, and uncertainty. Several studies have documented significant increases in depression, anxiety, and suicide rates during and after lockdowns.

1. Suicide Rates: Some countries reported increased suicide rates during the pandemic, but the data varies widely depending on the region. For example:
2. In the U.S., the CDC reported a 2-3% increase in suicides in 2020 compared to previous years, though the total number remained relatively stable in some areas, likely due to government intervention programs.
3. A study in the European Union found a slight uptick in suicides, but more severe consequences were observed in youth populations, with a significant rise in mental health-related hospitalizations.
4. Countries like Japan saw notable increases in suicides after the start of lockdowns, with some estimates putting this at around a 20% rise in 2020.

However, in some countries, mental health services and interventions (e.g., telehealth, social support systems) helped mitigate these effects. So, the overall death toll directly from suicides linked to the pandemic response is not straightforward but could be in the tens of thousands globally.

4. Economic Consequences (Job Losses, Poverty, etc.)

The economic lockdowns, mass unemployment, and business closures that followed the pandemic led to significant disruptions. Economic strain can exacerbate health conditions, increase suicide rates, and hinder access to life-saving treatments. Some studies have tried to estimate the "economic death toll":

1. Job Loss and Poverty: According to a study published in The Lancet, there were estimates that the economic downturn, combined with loss of income, led to an increase in deaths due to poverty and poor access to healthcare, especially in low- and middle-income countries.
2. A report by the World Bank suggested that the global poverty rate increased by around 9-10% during the pandemic, which can lead to higher death rates, as those in poverty have less access to healthcare, nutrition, and a safer living environment.

5. Healthcare Disruption (Non-COVID Deaths)

Many health systems around the world were stretched thin due to the pandemic, leading to delays in treatments for non-COVID conditions:

1. Cancer treatments were delayed, routine surgeries were postponed, and patients with chronic conditions (e.g., heart disease, diabetes) could not receive timely care.
2. A study published in The Lancet estimated that delayed cancer screenings and treatments might lead to hundreds of thousands of additional deaths in the following years.
3. The delay in vaccinations for other diseases (e.g., measles) and the disruption of maternal and child health services also had significant consequences on mortality rates, especially in poorer regions.

6. Impact on Vulnerable Groups

1. Children and Education: Long-term school closures affected children in numerous ways, including developmental delays, mental health challenges, and increased risk of abuse and neglect. Some studies found that the socio-economic consequences of school closures disproportionately impacted low-income families, and the broader effects could lead to higher long-term mortality in future years due to poor education and life outcomes.
2. Elderly Population: Older adults were particularly vulnerable to both the direct and indirect effects of the pandemic. Many elderly people died of non-COVID causes due to the psychological and physical tolls of isolation and limited access to healthcare. Additionally, the lockdowns exacerbated conditions like dementia and contributed to a rise in deaths from conditions like dehydration and malnutrition, especially in care homes.

7. Indirect Effects and Global Inequality

1. The impact of the pandemic was felt more acutely in low-income countries, where healthcare systems were often already fragile. Loss of income, inability to access vaccines, and insufficient healthcare infrastructure led to a higher death toll than in wealthier countries. The World Bank has suggested that tens of millions may face premature death due to the cumulative effects of economic and healthcare disruption in low-income regions.

Total Estimated Impact

It’s difficult to provide a single, accurate number of how many people have died as a result of the pandemic response due to the vast number of factors involved. However, based on various estimates:

1. Direct deaths from COVID-19: ~6.8 million globally.
2. Excess mortality (including indirect deaths): Likely in the range of 15-25 million globally.
3. Suicides and mental health issues: Thousands, though the total number is hard to pin down, with many estimates suggesting tens of thousands of deaths due to pandemic-related stress, job loss, and isolation.
4. Delayed healthcare (non-COVID deaths): Potentially hundreds of thousands to millions in future years due to delayed treatments for diseases like cancer, heart disease, and others.

In total, the broader impact of the pandemic response (including health, economic, and social factors) could contribute to an additional 20-30 million deaths or more, with this number likely to grow as we continue to analyze the long-term effects.

Conclusion

While direct COVID-19 deaths are relatively easy to quantify, the indirect effects of the pandemic response—such as suicides, delayed healthcare, and economic hardship—are more challenging to measure accurately. Global estimates vary, but the total number of deaths linked to the pandemic response could well exceed 20 million, with ongoing research likely to refine these numbers in the coming years.

Now here's the funny thing that's the version of ChatGPT you login to it which is supposedly quicker and smarter.

Here's the answer I got when I posted the same question while to GPT while not signed into it.

Here’s a data-driven breakdown—focusing strictly on peer-reviewed studies, government analyses, and credible global assessments:

1. Excess deaths from COVID-19 and health-system disruptions

1. A comprehensive WHO-backed analysis estimates 14.8 million excess deaths in 2020–2021 across the globe—well above the ~5.4 million officially reported COVID-19 deaths thelancet.com+8arxiv.org+8wired.com+8.
2. Some estimates reach as high as 18 million excess deaths . These figures include not only direct viral fatalities but also indirect deaths from delayed healthcare, overwhelmed hospitals, and diagnosis avoidance.

2. Suicides linked to pandemic-related socioeconomic fallout

1. Studies model that a high estimate of job losses (?25 million globally) in 2020 could lead to 9,570 additional suicide deaths per year, while a more moderate estimate puts it at ?2,135 per year frontiersin.org+2thelancet.com+2cepr.org+2.
2. Empirical data is mixed:
3. Many high-income countries saw no immediate rise in suicides early in the pandemic reddit.com+1reddit.com+1en.wikipedia.org+15thelancet.com+15time.com+15.
4. Some countries (Japan, Hungary, Spain) reported noticeable excess suicide deaths later (e.g., ~8,000 in Japan March 2020–June 2022; ~16.7% increase in Hungary) arxiv.org+2en.wikipedia.org+2bmcpsychiatry.biomedcentral.com+2.
5. Global view: Rough modeling suggests a few thousand to around 10,000 extra suicide deaths per year worldwide due to pandemic stress and economic disruption—but not multiples of that.

3. Severe adverse events from COVID-19 vaccines

1. Causally confirmed fatal vaccine reactions are extremely rare:
2. CDC review (U.S.): 14,980 reported deaths after ~589 million doses, but only 9 were causally linked (J&J vaccine) reddit.com+5reddit.com+5washingtonpost.com+5.
3. Qatar study: 6,928,359 doses, with 8 high-probability and 15 intermediate-probability vaccine-related deaths (?1–3 per million doses) arxiv.org+1pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov+1.
4. Global extrapolations suggest ~16,000 to 48,000 vaccine-related deaths worldwide—based on similar event rates and 13.6 billion global doses .
5. Some analyses using VAERS (U.S.) suggest up to ~4,110 reported deaths—an estimated 0.0015%—but these include events without verified causality .
6. Meta-analyses: mRNA vaccines associated with <0.2 per 10,000 deaths and severe adverse event rates far lower .
7. Recent FDA warnings note myocarditis risk—but incidence is ~8 per million, with typically mild outcomes .

?? Totals (approximate global impact)

Final summary

1. Excess mortality from direct COVID-19 impact and systemic stress: tens of millions globally (?15–18 million).
2. Suicide increase due to job-loss and lockdown stress: Add a few thousand to ~10,000 per year.
3. Vaccine-attributable deaths: Very rare—tens of thousands total, with causality carefully assessed.

?? Key caveats

1. Global figures are inherently uncertain; data quality and death registration vary greatly.
2. Suicide estimates are based on modeling and vary significantly by region and time.
3. Vaccine death figures strictly exclude coincidental or non-causal associations and rely on causality assessments.

Conclusion:

The largest mortality toll was from COVID-19 itself and its indirect effects on health systems (~15–18 million). Socioeconomic shocks may have added a modest suicide toll (~0.002–0.01 million/year). Vaccine deaths are extremely rare (tens of thousands globally across billions of doses)—well-documented, but negligible compared to COVID and economic consequences.

All estimates derive from peer-reviewed studies, official statistics, and reputable modeling—no mainstream media conjecture.

I also got a different answer before this from ChatGPT when I asked it the same question earlier. Notice how Reddit got used as a source as a well.

So between us we have asked CHATGPT the same question 4 times and got 4 different answers with some overlap.

Point is I really wish people would stop posting Chat GPT responses like its some sort of definitive answer to a question. It's a useful tool, but a lot of the point's it brings up need to elaborated on or have additional context provided.

It’s more than a useful tool, it’s a survey of the field. It means agenda driven researchers don’t bamboozle people by selective sourcing. Where there is no definitive answer it may put the emphasis on the wrong information…..it will get better at that.

It’s more than a useful tool, it’s a survey of the field. It means agenda driven researchers don’t bamboozle people by selective sourcing. Where there is no definitive answer it may put the emphasis on the wrong information…..it will get better at that.

Okay so selective sourcing isn't an issue?

is the case for man made climate change settled.

Yes, the case for human-caused (anthropogenic) climate change is considered scientifically settled by the overwhelming majority of climate scientists and major scientific organizations around the world.

Here's what that means:

1. Multiple studies show that over 97% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that humans are the primary cause of the global warming observed since the mid-20th century.
2. Organizations including NASA, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), NOAA, the American Meteorological Society, and the National Academy of Sciences all affirm this view.

1. The Earth is warming: Global average temperatures have risen ~1.1°C (2°F) since pre-industrial times.
2. Human activities—especially burning fossil fuels, deforestation, and industrial agriculture—are increasing greenhouse gases (mainly CO?, CH?, and N?O) in the atmosphere.
3. These gases trap heat, leading to the warming of the atmosphere, oceans, and land.

1. It does not mean that every detail about climate processes is fully understood or that projections are perfect.
2. There is still scientific debate on the rate of future warming, regional impacts, feedback loops, and best mitigation strategies.
3. But the core conclusion—that humans are causing climate change—is robust, well-supported, and not seriously contested within the scientific community.

Summary:

Yes, the fundamental case that humans are driving current climate change is settled. Ongoing research focuses on refining projections and understanding complex interactions, but the main cause is clear.

Would you like sources or a breakdown of common counterarguments and their scientific responses?

And the same question to Co-Pilot

Yes, the case for human-caused climate change is overwhelmingly settled within the scientific community.

Scientific Consensus

1. Over 99% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and primarily driven by human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.
2. This consensus is supported by virtually every major scientific organization worldwide, including NASA, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and national science academies.

Evidence Base

1. The evidence includes rising global temperatures, melting ice sheets, sea level rise, and increased frequency of extreme weather events.
2. Climate models that include only natural factors (like solar variability and volcanic activity) cannot explain the observed warming. Only when human-induced greenhouse gas emissions are included do the models match reality.

Scientific Method and Scrutiny

While science is always open to new evidence and refinement, the core conclusion—that human activities are the dominant cause of recent global warming—is considered unequivocal by the IPCC and other leading bodies.

Would you like to explore the most compelling lines of evidence or common misconceptions about climate change?

Now of course I doubt you're just going to accept or agree with ChatGPT's or Co-Pilots answer, but I'm curious when as you say it gets better over time, what you will say when it these A.I tools are giving you the same answer in three-five-ten years time.

What it’s reporting here is the scientific consensus. In that sense it’s absolutely accurate. It also says:

1. It does not mean that every detail about climate processes is fully understood or that projections are perfect.
2. There is still scientific debate on the rate of future warming, regional impacts, feedback loops, and best mitigation strategies.
3. But the core conclusion—that humans are causing climate change—is robust, well-supported, and not seriously contested within the scientific community.

Nobody is contesting CO2 is a greenhouse gas and having an effect. But many of the alarmist projections are already past due. The question is what’s the rate of man made effect. And is all of the 1.2 degrees man made in origin. Unlikely given the starting point.

And crucially, the topic never addressed, is the temperature at the beginning of industrialization the only perfect temperature for human well being….or could a 2 degree warmer planet actually be better.

Finally are the mitigation steps well thought out. For example if we had pushed hybrid cars with electric use in cities, would we have seen far broader adoption retaining 70% of the benefit. (70% to 75% of driving is within 50 miles of a city).

We could by now have a largely hybrid fleet, way more impactful than the current all electric fleet. I own one electric car, and I default to it most of the time because of convenience.

But if new facts emerge I will adapt, real facts are compelling. Models aren’t if they have an agenda