Towering Q,
At your post #178, you posted a link to an article on the SkepticalScience website and quoted some of that article.
I followed your link to that article and read it - and compared it to the article on which it was based (the essay by Alec Rawls - the leaker of the AR5 draft).
It appears the intent of the author of the SkepticalScience piece ("dana1981") is to play down and obfuscate the claims made by Rawls.
There were a number of bombshells in the Rawls essay but none of these were tackled by the dana1981.
The author quoted 3 of Rawls' non-bombshell statements and bolded a portion of one. I quote that one here, and reproduce her bolding:
"There is very high confidence that natural forcing is a small fraction of the anthropogenic forcing. In particular, over the past three decades (since 1980), robust evidence from satellite observations of the TSI [total solar irradiance] and volcanic aerosols demonstrate a near-zero (–0.04 W m–2) change in the natural forcing compared to the anthropogenic AF increase of ~1.0 ± 0.3 W m–2."
Check out the bit she bolded. This was the only bit she bolded out of 3 quoted statements.
How's that for trying to baffle us with obfuscation?
The truly bombshell claims by Rawls, ignored by dana1981, are:
"The Chapter 7 authors are admitting strong evidence (“many empirical relationships”) for enhanced solar forcing (forcing beyond total solar irradiance, or TSI), even if they don’t know what the mechanism is."
And,
"This analysis, where post-1980 warming gets attributed to the human release of CO2 on the grounds that it cannot be attributed to solar irradiance, cannot stand in the face of the Chapter 7 admission of substantial evidence for solar forcing beyond solar irradiance. Once the evidence for enhanced solar forcing is taken into account we can have no confidence that natural forcing is small compared to anthropogenic forcing."
And,
"The report still barely hints at the mountain of evidence for enhanced solar forcing, or the magnitude of the evidenced effect. Dozens of studies (section two here) have found between a .4 and .7 degree of correlation between solar activity and various climate indices, suggesting that solar activity “explains” in the statistical sense something like half of all past temperature change, very little of which could be explained by the very slight variation in TSI. At least the Chapter 7 team is now being explicit about what this evidence means: that some mechanism of enhanced solar forcing must be at work."
And finally:
"The admission of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing changes everything. The climate alarmists can’t continue to claim that warming was almost entirely due to human activity over a period when solar warming effects, now acknowledged to be important, were at a maximum."