Excellent post on the history of the events around the IPCC and attribution of warming to humans.
________________________________________________________
MADRID 1995: Tipping Point?—The Quest (Part II)–The Last Day (Part II)
________________________________________________________
We continue our quest for how human attribution was first established by the IPCC with a close look at the dramas on the final day in Madrid using the Australian Delegation Report as our guide. The first and second essays on the Chapter 8 Controversy will help readers follow the story, but the main tip for new readers is to catch up on the importance of Barnett et al 1996 in maintaining the scepticism of all but the published version of Chapter 8. Also helpful will be this key to drafts and meetings:
SAR 18Apr95 draft: the version of the Working Group 1 Second Assessment Report sent out for review before the deadline for comments on chapters in early July 1995
Asheville Meeting of Lead Authors (25-8 Jul) convened primarily…
View original post 7,276 more words
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Arguments about attribution of temperature rise are redundant once there is no such rise, like now i.e. this century. Political trickery can’t obscure the facts forever.
By the same token the science ideas supporting such concepts have to be rejected, or at least drastically modified, in the face of long-term contradictory evidence.
Oldbrew — Yes, the old “D & A” language looks strange today. In 1995, in SAR, they made a clear distinction between detecting the warming before attributing it to greenhouse gases. The detection was about determining the extent to which the warming was outside normal variability — usually by statistical method on the instrumental record. Before Santer’s changes to the report, even detection was dubious, but there was certainly no attribution. But now what? Since 1995, or there abouts, it is widely agreed that there has been no warming. So there is nothing to attribute, nothing requiring explanation.