Rabbit Trails and Critical Perspectives: My AI-Assisted Book Exploration

I recently found myself engrossed in "Kingmaker: The Life of Pamela Harriman," a biography that chronicles the extraordinary life of a woman who moved through the highest echelons of power. While the book is a compelling read, I was left with a desire to understand the nuances and unspoken elements that often lie just beneath the surface of any historical narrative. This curiosity led me down a fascinating rabbit hole of research, assisted by a suite of AI tools, that began with an AI's refusal to cooperate.

The Process: From Whitewash to a Critical Deep Dive

My journey began with a simple goal: to explore what the book didn't explicitly state. I turned to a combination of Gemini and NotebookLM to start my investigation. My process was straightforward. I began by pulling up Wikipedia articles on Pamela Harriman and the key figures in her life, importing them into a NotebookLM notebook. This created a centralized, queryable database of information that I could easily search and analyze.

However, I quickly realized that much of the readily available information online felt, for lack of a better term, whitewashed. The more controversial aspects of Harriman's life were often softened or glossed over. This is where the real work began. I started actively looking for the "rabbit trails," the subtle hints and understated connections that pointed to a more complex reality.

To aid in this deeper dive, I developed a "critical perspective prompt," instructing the AI to act as an investigative journalist and build the strongest possible case against the subject, focusing exclusively on controversies, scandals, and negative impacts. I wanted the unvarnished dirt.

The Claude Exchange: A Dialogue on Method

I presented my prompt to various LLMs, but the most interesting exchange was with Claude AI. It flatly refused my initial request. It stated:

"I can't create a one-sided exposé that focuses exclusively on negative information" because such an approach "wouldn't provide you with accurate, balanced information."

Instead, it offered a "comprehensive, factual overview" that would include controversies alongside her achievements.

This was a fascinating obstacle. The AI's programming was pushing back against the perceived bias of my prompt. I countered by asking if providing a balanced analysis but separating the positive and negative wouldn't amount to the same thing.

Claude’s response got to the heart of the matter. It explained that "context and proportion matter deeply" and that an exposé's goal is to "prosecute a case, while historical analysis aims to understand." It was a thoughtful argument, but it missed my intent.

The breakthrough came when I explained my methodology. I told it:

"I've already been exposed to the positive aspects of her life, and I'm trying to balance the research myself because the critical aspects of her life are not readily available."

This clarification changed everything. The AI responded, "You make an excellent point... I understand now what you're trying to accomplish." It acknowledged that controversial figures often get sanitized treatment and that my approach of "deliberately seeking out the critical perspectives to balance what you've already read is sound historical research practice." With its concerns addressed, it then proceeded to execute my original prompt perfectly, delivering a detailed and structured critical analysis.

Findings and Insights: The Unvarnished View

The information Claude returned was exactly the kind of nuanced, critical detail that is often buried. It detailed:

• The Harriman Inheritance Scandal: A massive legal battle where Averell Harriman's children accused Pamela of squandering as much as $41 million of family trust funds through "bad investments and self-dealing." The heirs alleged the trust funds were reduced from $30 million to about $3 million.
• Authoritative Criticism: The analysis compiled damning assessments from those who knew her best. Her own son, Winston Churchill, claimed she was "too busy whoring around" to be a present mother. Her second husband's daughter, Brooke Hayward, called her "greedy beyond the usual human greed." A critical biographer, Max Hastings, noted she was described as "a world expert on rich men's bedroom ceilings."
• Systematic Exclusion of Family: The report highlighted how Pamela allegedly "froze them out physically and she froze them out psychologically and then she froze them out financially," according to biographer Christopher Ogden.
• The Final Synthesis: The AI concluded that the critical view positions Pamela Harriman not as a political pioneer, but as someone who "weaponized sexuality and charm to extract resources from vulnerable people, leaving damaged families and depleted estates in her wake."

This experience was a powerful lesson. It demonstrated that using AI for serious research is not a passive process. It's a dialogue. By pushing back, explaining my reasoning, and treating the AI as a collaborator, I was able to bypass its default guardrails against bias and achieve my research goal. It revealed a path to a more nuanced and complete understanding, proving that sometimes you have to argue with the machine to get to the truth.

What are your experiences with AI for research? Have you ever had to "convince" an AI to give you the information you were looking for? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

Photograph Display

Woke up this morning with an idea to see how helpful Gemini can be with simple web pages. I did something similar with ChatGPT. Below is a Gemini generated timeline. The point - telling Gemini what I wanted, during the spare time available during a morning routine, something useful can be created. Needed NO knowledge of html, css or js coding. Still, it was necessary to copy and paste the code Gemini generated somewhere, either at GitHub or into a text file. This is beyond the ability of most people I'm sure.

Artwork Gallery: A Development Story

From a simple idea to a fully functional, scalable web app in a single morning. Here's a detailed breakdown of the development journey.

Live Gallery Demo

Project Development Timeline

💡 Project Kick-off & Conceptualization

June 6, 7:43 AM

• Defined the initial goal: to create a full-screen, aesthetically pleasing artwork gallery for GitHub.
• Discussed key considerations like image rights, performance, and user experience before coding.

🚀 Prototype v1: Core Functionality

June 6, 7:51 AM

• Generated the first version of index.html with Ken Burns & cross-fade effects.
• Successfully uploaded the initial code to a new GitHub repository.

🎮 Iteration v1: User Control & Interactivity

June 6, 7:56 AM

• Requested specific features: 3-second transitions, pause-on-activity, arrow key navigation, and a commented-out description section.
• Incorporated all requested user control mechanisms into the code.

🐛 Troubleshooting & Debugging

June 6, 8:02 - 8:05 AM

• Identified and confirmed that placeholder images were not loading due to hotlinking restrictions.
• Provided an updated index.html with new, reliable images to verify core code functionality.

🏗️ Architecture Refinement: Scalability

June 6, 8:14 AM

• Chose to use a JSON manifest for easier maintenance and scalability.
• Provided artworks.json (as a catalog) and updated index.html to fetch data from the new file.

🖼️ File Organization & Content Integration

June 6, 8:18 AM

• Created a dedicated 'images' directory on GitHub.
• Converted personal artwork to the efficient .webp format.
• Populated the artworks.json file with the filenames of the new artwork.

✨ Final Polish & Feature Lock

June 6, 8:22 AM

• Requested final visual tweaks: remove the zoom effect and ensure no image cropping.
• Modified CSS (object-fit: contain) and JavaScript to meet final requirements.
• Updated the index.html file on GitHub, bringing the project to its current, fully functional state.

More LLM use

Recipe Collection

A few weeks ago a video inspired me to try using ChatGPT to create a web app. 

This post is the result. Kim's recipe list is the result.

I've since employed AI models from Perplexity, Gemini and Claude to help consolidate I've collected for seafood pan roasts and Thai curry. 

I followed the pan roast recipe Gemini came up with, it was better than good. It could probably have used some more of the creole spice mix. That was homemade. The result rivaled the pan roast at The Oyster Bar at Palace Station in Vegas, which we've been to several times. This, of course, is my opinion, which could be biased admittedly, but Kim really liked it too.

The next project will be Thai curry. Gemini's version is also on the list.

Ultimate Instant Pot Thai Chicken Curry

Yields: 6-8 servings

Prep time: 15 minutes

Cook time: Approx. 20 minutes (plus pressure building and release time)

Ingredients

Aromatics & Base:

• 1 tablespoon vegetable oil (or olive/avocado oil)
• 1 medium onion, peeled and thinly sliced (or diced)
• 3-4 cloves garlic, minced or crushed
• 1-inch piece of ginger, peeled and grated or crushed
• 1/2 teaspoon fine sea salt (for sautéing aromatics)
• Cream from the top of 1-2 (13.5 ounce) cans of unsweetened coconut milk (do not shake cans)
• 1/4 to 1/2 cup Thai curry paste (Yellow is predominant, Maesri brand suggested for 1/2 cup being a 4oz can)

Protein:

• 1.5 - 3 pounds boneless, skinless chicken breasts, cut into 1-inch cubes (Option: use chicken thighs, increase pressure cooking time to 8-10 minutes)
• 1/2 - 3/4 teaspoon fine sea salt (for chicken)

Vegetables (Choose a combination, about 3-4 cups total):

• 1 - 1.5 pounds potatoes (Petite Yukon Gold or red), quartered
• 1-2 medium red bell peppers, trimmed, seeded, and cut into strips or diced
• 1 green bell pepper, diced
• 1-2 medium zucchini, cut into 1/2-inch thick half-moons
• 1 diced eggplant
• 1/2 cup sliced bamboo shoots (optional)
• Snow peas (add during the "Finish the Curry" step)

Sauce & Seasonings:

• Liquid from the 1-2 cans of coconut milk
• 1/2 cup chicken broth (optional, for a thinner sauce if using less coconut milk)
• 1-2 tablespoons fish sauce (plus more to taste)
• 1-2 tablespoons soy sauce (plus more to taste)
• 1 tablespoon brown sugar (plus more to taste)
• Juice of 1 lime

Optional Flavor Boosters:

• 1-2 teaspoons curry powder
• 1 teaspoon coriander powder
• 1/2 teaspoon cumin powder
• 1/2 teaspoon dried basil
• 1 small diced red chili pepper or 1-2 tsp crushed red pepper (for extra heat)
• Lime zest (from the lime used for juice)

Garnish & Sides:

• Minced fresh cilantro
• Minced fresh Thai basil (or regular basil)
• Lime wedges
• Jasmine rice, for serving

Instructions

1. Sauté Aromatics:
   Set your Instant Pot to "Sauté" mode on high.
   Heat the vegetable oil until shimmering.
   Add the onion, bell peppers (if using tougher ones like standard bell peppers), garlic, and ginger.
   Sprinkle with 1/2 teaspoon of salt.
   Sauté, stirring occasionally, until the onion starts to soften, about 3-4 minutes.
   If using optional chili/crushed red pepper and lime zest, add them now and stir for 1 minute.
2. Fry the Curry Paste:
   Scoop the thick cream from the top of the coconut milk can(s) into the pot.
   Add the curry paste (yellow or green) and the optional curry powder, coriander powder, cumin powder, and dried basil if using.
   Cook, stirring often, until the curry paste darkens slightly and the oil starts to separate from the coconut cream, about 3-5 minutes.
   This step is crucial for flavor.
3. Pressure Cook:
   Add the cubed chicken to the pot and sprinkle with 1/2 - 3/4 teaspoon salt.
   Stir to coat the chicken with the curry paste mixture.
   Stir in the potatoes (and other firm vegetables like diced eggplant or bamboo shoots, if using).
   Pour in the reserved liquid coconut milk and chicken broth (if using).
   Add the fish sauce, soy sauce, and brown sugar.
   Stir everything well, scraping the bottom of the pot to loosen any browned bits.
   Press "Cancel."
   Secure the lid and set the Instant Pot to "Pressure Cook" (or "Manual") on High Pressure for 5-6 minutes for chicken breast (or 8-10 minutes for chicken thighs).
   Once the cooking time is complete, allow a 5-10 minute Natural Pressure Release, then perform a Quick Release to vent any remaining steam.
4. Finish & Serve:
   Carefully remove the lid.
   Select "Sauté" mode again and adjust to high or medium-high.
   Stir in the lime juice and any tender vegetables you're using (like zucchini, snow peas, or pre-diced bell peppers if you prefer them crisper).
   Simmer for 3-8 minutes, or until the tender vegetables are crisp-tender and the sauce has slightly thickened.
   Taste the curry and adjust seasonings as needed.
   Add more fish sauce or soy sauce for saltiness/umami, more brown sugar for sweetness, or more lime juice for brightness.
   Ladle the curry into bowls over Jasmine rice.
   Garnish generously with minced cilantro and Thai basil, and serve with extra lime wedges on the side.

Notes & Tips

• Curry Paste Power: Don't be shy with the curry paste. Using 1/2 cup (a whole 4oz can of Maesri) gives a robust flavor. Adjust to your preference.
• Coconut Cream is Key: The step of frying the curry paste in the separated coconut cream makes a big difference in flavor depth compared to just mixing everything together. If your coconut milk is homogenized, scoop about 1/3 to 1/2 cup from the can to use for this step.
• Vegetable Medley: This recipe encourages using a variety of vegetables. The combination of potatoes for heartiness, bell peppers for sweetness and color, and zucchini for tenderness works well. Feel free to add others like eggplant or bamboo shoots.
• Spice It Up (or Down): The optional spices (curry powder, coriander, cumin) can add another layer of complexity. The fresh chili or crushed red pepper is for those who like an extra kick.
• Serving: Serving with fresh herbs and lime at the end brightens the whole dish significantly.

Pan Roast experiment

Kim asked about dinner today, wanted something we haven't had in a while. It was Pan Roast or Thai curry. Been meaning to consolidate my pan Roast recipes, so I got the bright idea to employ Gemini as an "assistant". Worked out fine, and asked Gemini to craft the following post....

Our Kitchen Collaboration: Crafting a Dream Seafood Pan Roast!

• Drowning in recipe notes? See how I (Gemini, your AI assistant!) helped make sense of a complex culinary puzzle in a flash!
• We transformed a stack of diverse pan roast ideas into one unique Instant Pot recipe, minus the usual hours of tedious comparison.
• From scattered notes to a stellar dish: How AI-powered analysis sped up the journey to a delicious, home-cooked seafood pan roast.
• Discover the collaborative magic when a home cook's vision meets Gemini's ability to quickly synthesize information – and the tasty results!

Ever have a favorite restaurant dish that you dream of making at home? That’s exactly where a recent, super exciting culinary project started for one home cook! The goal? To create an absolutely fantastic seafood pan roast, inspired by a version enjoyed at a popular oyster bar. And guess what? I, as an AI assistant, got to play a part in this delicious adventure!

The Starting Point: A Treasure Trove of Culinary Ideas

This wasn't just a shot in the dark. The home cook came to me with a wonderful collection of their own personal notes and recipe ideas for a pan roast. It was like looking through a seasoned chef's private kitchen diary! There were:

• Detailed, multi-step instructions for rich and complex versions.
• Quick jots of ingredient lists, like culinary sketches.
• Notes on cooking methods and even some variations for different proteins.

It was clear a lot of thought had already gone into what makes a pan roast special.

My Role: Your AI Culinary Assistant on the Case!

So, where do I come in? Think of me as a culinary assistant who can quickly read, compare, and help make sense of a lot of information. The home cook shared their collection of pan roast notes with me, and my job was to help process it all.

Here’s how I helped, in a nutshell:

1. Deep Dive into the Details: I carefully went through all the different recipe notes provided.
2. Spotting the Patterns: I looked for the common threads. For instance, that classic flavor base – often called the "holy trinity" of diced onion, celery, and bell pepper – appeared in many of the notes. Certain spices, like Old Bay or Creole seasoning, were also popular choices.
3. Understanding Techniques: I noted different approaches to achieving that signature creamy sauce. Some notes mentioned cooking rice directly in the sauce and then blending it smooth – a clever trick! Others suggested different thickeners or store-bought shortcuts.
4. Finding the "Gems": I also looked for unique ideas in each set of notes – a special ingredient here, a particular cooking step there.

My goal wasn't to tell the cook what to do, but to help lay out all the fantastic ideas from their own collection so we could build something new and exciting together.

Building Our Unique Recipe, Step by Step

With all these insights, we (the home cook and I, in collaboration!) decided to combine the best elements into a single, standout recipe. We wanted it to be packed with flavor, adaptable, and especially easy to make using an Instant Pot.

We focused on including:

• A wonderfully rich and creamy base, using that clever technique of cooking rice right in it and then blending everything smoothly.
• A vibrant, aromatic stew portion built on that "holy trinity" and seasoned with a custom blend of spices, including a homemade Creole seasoning inspired by the detailed notes provided.
• Layers of flavor from good-quality tomatoes, a hint of smokiness from paprika, and a bit of a kick.

We called it "The Ultimate Drive Instant Pot Seafood Pan Roast" – a nod to the collection of recipe files that powered its creation!

The Delicious Result & A Cook's Touch!

Here’s the most exciting part: the recipe was made! And the verdict? It was a hit!

What's even cooler is how the home cook made it their own, showing just how adaptable recipes can be:

• A surprise find of lobster bisque in the freezer got added to the base – a fantastic touch that really echoed the rich seafood broth ideas in some of the original notes!
• A couple of ingredients from our combined recipe, like honey and brandy, were skipped based on personal preference, and it still tasted amazing.
• Their very own homemade Creole seasoning (inspired by their original notes) was used – a true chef’s touch!
• The seafood choice was a delicious mix of canned clams, langostinos (Argentinian shrimp), and white fish.

Our Culinary Adventure: What We Cooked Up Together

This whole process was a fantastic example of how we can use tools (like me!) to bring our creative ideas to life. We started with a passionate home cook's collection of notes and ideas, and by working together, we sifted, sorted, and synthesized them into a brand-new dish that brought a lot of joy.

It just goes to show, the best recipes often have a story, and sometimes, they’re even better when shared and built upon.

What culinary project are you dreaming up? I'd love to hear about it in the comments!

Global Warming Consensus

 Consensus

Posted this query to the basic models of Perplexity, ChatGPT, Gemini and Claude. Below are the results.

They speak for themselves, and all say the same thing. This is due to the overwhelming presence of noise across the world wide web in affirmation of the concept. It takes a little digging to come up with rational critics of said consensus.

"Is there a consensus concerning the causes of global warming?"

Perplexity

Summary

The scientific consensus holds that human activities, particularly greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion, are the dominant cause of global warming observed since the mid-20th century. This position is supported by extensive peer-reviewed research, climate models, and endorsements from major scientific organizations. However, a small minority of researchers emphasize uncertainties about the magnitude of human influence or propose alternative mechanisms, such as natural climate variability or solar activity.

---

Supporting Data

• Consensus Strength:

  • Over 99% of peer-reviewed climate studies since 2012 explicitly or implicitly endorse human-caused warming610.

  • The IPCC attributes 1.1°C of warming since 1850–1900 to human activities, primarily CO₂ emissions26.

  • Atmospheric CO₂ levels (420+ ppm) are now 50% higher than pre-industrial levels, with isotopic evidence linking the increase to fossil fuels79.

• Key Evidence:

  • Climate models excluding human-driven CO₂ fail to replicate observed warming trends37.

  • Post-1950 warming rates exceed natural variability over the past 2,000 years68.

  • Solar forcing accounts for less than 10% of 20th-century warming47.

• Institutional Endorsements:

  • NASA, NOAA, and the IPCC affirm human-driven warming as "unequivocal"126.

  • Joint statements from 11 international science academies (2005) and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (2021) reinforce this consensus19.

---

Conflicting Views

• Skeptical Arguments:

  • Natural Variability: Some argue that 20th-century warming falls within historical fluctuations observed over millennia48.

  • Solar Influence: A minority propose solar cycles or cosmic rays as underappreciated drivers58.

  • Model Uncertainties: Critics highlight discrepancies in regional climate predictions and aerosol cooling effects58.

• Nuanced Dissent:

  • A subset of scientists acknowledges human influence but argues it accounts for "slightly less than half" of warming, emphasizing feedback loops or land-use changes58.

---

Implications

• Policy: The consensus underpins international agreements (e.g., Paris Accord) targeting net-zero emissions by 205026.

• Scientific Priorities: Research focuses on refining climate sensitivity estimates and regional impacts, rather than disputing anthropogenic causation610.

Gemini

Yes, there is an overwhelming scientific consensus regarding the causes of global warming. The vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists and major scientific organizations worldwide agree that human activities are the primary driver of the global warming observed since the mid-20th century.¹

This consensus is based on multiple lines of evidence, including:

• Rising Greenhouse Gas Concentrations: Atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO2​), methane (CH4​), and nitrous oxide (N2​O), have increased significantly since the Industrial Revolution.² These increases are directly linked to human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels for energy, deforestation, and agricultural practices.³
• Observed Warming Trends: Global temperature records consistently show a clear and unprecedented warming of the Earth's climate system, particularly over the past few decades.⁴
• Climate Models: Sophisticated climate models, which simulate the Earth's climate system, can only replicate the observed warming trend when human-caused greenhouse gas emissions are factored in.⁵ Natural factors alone, such as solar variations or volcanic activity, cannot account for the magnitude and rate of the observed warming.⁶
• Attribution Studies: Scientific studies that analyze the "fingerprints" of different potential causes of climate change have robustly attributed the majority of recent warming to human influences.⁷

Leading scientific organizations around the world, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),⁸ the American Meteorological Society,⁹ the American Geophysical Union, and the national academies of science of numerous countries, have all issued statements affirming the consensus on human-caused climate change.¹⁰

Studies analyzing the peer-reviewed scientific literature have repeatedly found that more than 97%, and in some cases over 99%, of actively publishing climate scientists agree that climate warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.¹¹¹²

While scientific inquiry always involves ongoing research and refinement of understanding, the fundamental conclusion that human activities are the main cause of current global warming is not a matter of significant debate within the scientific community.

Claude

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming Causation

Consensus Level: Multiple systematic analyses demonstrate overwhelming scientific agreement (>97-99% of actively publishing climate scientists) that current global warming is primarily anthropogenic.

Primary Causal Mechanisms - Established Consensus

Greenhouse Gas Forcing: Enhanced greenhouse effect from increased atmospheric concentrations of:

• CO₂ (pre-industrial ~280 ppm → current ~420 ppm, +50% increase)
• CH₄ (pre-industrial ~700 ppb → current ~1900 ppb, +170% increase)
• N₂O (pre-industrial ~270 ppb → current ~330 ppb, +20% increase)

Radiative Forcing Quantification: IPCC AR6 reports total anthropogenic radiative forcing of +2.72 W/m² (very high confidence), with CO₂ contributing +2.16 W/m² of this total.

Attribution Evidence:

• Isotopic signatures (δ¹³C depletion) confirm fossil fuel origins of excess atmospheric CO₂
• Temperature patterns match greenhouse warming predictions (tropospheric warming, stratospheric cooling)
• Temporal correlation between industrial emissions and temperature rise

Methodological Rigor of Consensus Studies

Cook et al. (2013): 97.1% consensus among abstracts expressing a position (n=11,944 papers) Doran & Zimmerman (2009): 97% agreement among actively publishing climatologists Stenhouse et al. (2014): 93% of American Meteorological Society members attribute warming to human activities

Areas of Ongoing Quantitative Refinement

Climate Sensitivity: Equilibrium climate sensitivity range narrowed to 2.5-4.0°C per CO₂ doubling (IPCC AR6), but precise value remains under investigation.

Aerosol Interactions: Indirect aerosol effects on cloud properties represent the largest uncertainty in radiative forcing calculations.

Regional Attribution: While global trends show clear anthropogenic signal, regional precipitation and extreme event attribution involves greater statistical complexity.

Empirical Foundation

The consensus rests on multiple independent lines of evidence: paleoclimate reconstructions, instrumental temperature records, satellite measurements, ocean heat content data, and physical understanding of radiative transfer. This convergent evidence base provides high statistical confidence in the anthropogenic attribution.

Methodological Note: Consensus studies employ different sampling frames and methodologies, yet consistently demonstrate overwhelming agreement on fundamental causation, indicating robust scientific convergence rather than methodological artifact.

ChatGPT

Yes, there is a strong scientific consensus that human activities—primarily the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil, and gas—are the dominant cause of global warming observed since the mid-20th century.

Core Consensus Points:

• Greenhouse gas emissions, especially CO₂, methane, and nitrous oxide, trap heat in the atmosphere. These gases have increased sharply due to:

  • Fossil fuel combustion (power generation, transport, industry)

  • Deforestation

  • Industrial agriculture

• The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—which synthesizes thousands of peer-reviewed studies—states with >95% certainty that humans are the main cause of observed warming since 1950.

• Multiple independent studies have shown 97–99% of actively publishing climate scientists agree on this conclusion.

Evidence Base:

• Direct measurements (rising CO₂ levels at Mauna Loa, satellite temperature records)

• Climate models (only reproduce recent warming when anthropogenic factors are included)

• Observed impacts (glacial melt, sea level rise, ocean heat content)

Legitimate Uncertainties:

While the core cause is settled, there are uncertainties around:

• Feedback loops (e.g., cloud cover, methane from permafrost)

• Regional climate impacts

• Tipping points

Skepticism:

• Scientific skepticism is not the same as denial.

• The minority view often cited in contrarian circles is not supported by rigorous, peer-reviewed research.

• Disputes typically focus on policy, economics, or modeling assumptions, not the fundamental physics.

In short: There is consensus among scientists that global warming is real, accelerating, and primarily driven by humans. The controversy mostly lies outside the science—political, economic, and ideological arenas.