Should we still apply the Sherlock Holmes dictum to climate change attribution?

first, i'll recall famous sherlock holmes dictum: "when have eliminated impossible, whatever remains, improbable must truth."

dictum has been applied climate change attribution in many different forms. basically, stated unless 1 can find natural forcing(s) explain recent warming, must co2 causing it.

however, recent court ruling in uk has rendered judgement in case overturns holmes dictum burden of proof. reasons given court outlined here:

"lord brandon rejected 'sherlock holmes dictum', runs effect "when have eliminated impossible, whatever remains, improbable must truth", proper approach causation following reasons:

1. open court conclude party bears burden of proof has failed discharge burden;
2. sherlock holmes dictum can operate when relevant facts known; ,
3. contrary common sense judge conclude occurrence of event extremely improbable nevertheless find balance of probabilities test satisfied (i.e. event more have occurred not)." http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.a...

of subjective determinations in ipcc reports based on bayesian probability. (for example, see box 1.1 here: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data...

should ipcc reconsider how determines , delivers assessments?

first, i'll recall famous sherlock holmes dictum: "when have eliminated impossible, whatever remains, improbable must truth." dictum has been applied climate change attribution in many different forms. basically, stated unless 1 can find...

Environment Global Warming Next