On the plus side, there's no reason for William M. Connolley to comment here anymore

Connolley is a big proponent of the “going Emeritus” rhetorical strategy. So, when an eminent scientist, who might not have worked in atmospheric sciences but has loads of experience with data handling, computer models, etc as well as practical experience with the “sociology of science” like the corrupting influence of huge flows of grant money for example, cries foul over outrageous AGW predictions, William jumps in and…calls names. The reasoning of aforementioned famous scientist can be swept under the rug since he has “gone emeritus”. From his lofty perch as a has-been (or maybe never-was) he is lord and arbiter of the scientific universe and scourge of the accomplished elite.
He has, of late, taken this prediliction to the extreme by attacking Aristotle as a dummy. I guess it makes sense, he is probably the most emeritus of the emeriti. So William feels not the least bit silly attacking Aristotle for not having all of physics figured out 2400 years ago (and with no measuring instruments lying about).
William’s internet pal Annan suffers from the same problem of ego inflation. His web site features a recent attack on prominent scientists who dare to not agree with Connolley and Annan. I’m sure such bravado gives a frisson to the acolytes, but to the huge majority of sane technically-educated readers it confirms the bankruptcy of the view they push.

@wmc
yet more condescending hand waving,must have be painfull watching the gravy train pass you by.

[SNIP: Dr. Connolley, you’ve taken a lot of flack here and allowing you to respond is fair, but you may not abuse other commenters with this sort of language. Kindly resubmit without the abuse. -REP]

@- Smokey – Re:- climate sensitivity
“But there are more credible explanations, as Prof Richard Lindzen has pointed out.”
Have you got a link ? I have yet to see any explanation from Lindzen of the contradiction in his description of climate sensitivity being small – or negative at present, but large for glacial/interstadel transitions and the MWP?
@-Smokey says: April 23, 2012 at 4:35 am
“AGW is a conjecture; just the first step in the discovery of scientific truth. But it is only a conjecture, because it is not testable or falsifiable. If it were testable and falsifiable it would become a scientific hypothesis – but still not a “theory”. To be a theory, it must have at least one non-trivial datum point, and it must be able to make consistent, accurate predictions.”
Not historically accurate.
AGW was a conjecture when proposed by Arrhenius around 1900 and a hypothesis when re-formulated by Callender in the 1930s. It took all the known data on energy flows and climate, modeled the outcome and made the novel prediction that if human emissions of CO2 raised the atmospheric levels then that would cause a warming of the climate.
Quite when AGW became a theory is open to interpretation. Perhaps in the late 1950s when the inability of the oceans to absorb the extra CO2,(Revelle) the measured rise,(Keeling) and the accurate calculation/measurement of how energy transfers within an atmosphere with increasing CO2 were made.(Plass)
Or perhaps you would hold out for the confirmation of a non-trivial valid datum like the predictions made in the 1981 paper by Hansen et al –
Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960’s and
1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is
consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of
atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar
luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend
of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming
should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the
century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980’s. Potential effects on
climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North
America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West
Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the
fabled Northwest Passage.
http://thedgw.org/definitionsOut/..%5Cdocs%5CHansen_climate_impact_of_increasing_co2.pdf
Or perhaps you prefer the direct measurement of the changing energy flows with the altered spectrum seen in satellite data and the altered energy seen in the down-welling LW radiation from the BSRN.
I am sure that you could contrapt a version of the AGW theory that is unfalsifiable, but that would be your version, it is … better to engage with the version that is in common use amongst the vast majority of the scientifically informed. The examples I give above are just some of the novel predictions made by the original AGW hypotheis that have provided non-trivial validating datum points.
I see you have made another error of projection in your last paragraph …
“Once you understand that, the whole ANTI – AGW scare becomes a risible fiction, promoted only by those who financially benefit from it, and the mindless lemmings who follow their leaders’ instructions.”
Fixed it for you! -grin-

@ur momisuglyizen:”(the warmer, more globally synchronous the MWP the higher climate sensitivity must be.)”
Isn’t that only true if you accept the premise that CO2 concentration fluctuations drive global average temperature anomalies, rather than the other way around?
After all, isn’t it possible for the MWP to happen without being driven by CO2?
@ur momisugly wmconnolley:”You’re not competent to evaluate any of the science, so how do you know what is valid or not?”
How did you decide that you were competent?

wmconnolley says:
April 23, 2012 at 11:59 am
I think this post suggests Mr Connolley is getting riled, no?
and then
wmconnolley says:
April 23, 2012 at 1:00 pm
”…pledges are worthless, etc..’
My goodness – someone has rattled your cage! And, for the record, content free twaddle without abuse is acceptable because we all have to learn sometime (cue song..LOL.). Abusive content is futile and merely illustrates the incompetence of the writer.
To our wonderful mods (and Anthony, of course) – is there any way to partially snip and enable a flavour of ‘bad’ posts to peek through. It’s just that, in the context of WMC’s drollness, and his clear loss of cool and ‘face’ – wouldn’t a ‘flavour’ be enough to reveal his true idiosyncratic colours to the rest of us?
just askin….

I tried taking this discussion back to the “Policy Lass” thread but it only took a couple of comments to earn the “Moderators” displeasure.
I can’t imagine what a clueless, humble camel can say that is too dangerous for William Connolley’s flock to hear.
That said, I am miffed with Anthony Watts. We need Connolley here. His scientific arguments provide a beautiful contrast with some of the hard scientists on this site.
REPLY: You’ve got the wrong idea, Connelley wasn’t dis-invited, I just said he’d had no reason to comment anymore since he views us all as “hopelessly stupid” – Anthony

@izen: “Not long enough for a 0.14degC/decade to be detectable above the climate ‘noise’. ”
So if we found any other historical period, that was longer than my 1998-2012 period, where CO2 continued to rise, but global average temperature remained mostly flat or dropped, would *that* be a falsification?
Do you accept that we see this in the ice core record with CO2 lagging temperature changes, or do you have another ad hoc special pleading?
“What observations would YOU find persuasive of a real and significant climate effect from CO2”
Well, first off, it would have been much more persuasive if the ice core records always showed global average temps lagging CO2 rather than the other way around. But more importantly, what would be persuasive to me would be a complete list of necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statements, and a concerted effort to *find* those observations in either the proxy record, the thermometer record, or in future observations. One can become a believer in psychics if you walk into Madame Zoorik’s tent, and she tells you both your life’s story and your future with uncanny accuracy – but should I be convinced by observing that? Should I simply accept the evidence of her prognostications coming true as proof that she has psychic powers?
Imagine your question as, “what observations would YOU find persuasive of a real and significant climate effect from natural variation?” If I were to put it in terms of falsifiability, what observations could I have that would show that there is no such thing as natural climate change? Perhaps a paleo record that never changes? Perhaps a thermometer record that never changes? Of course it is *trivial* for us to falsify that hypothesis, and we generally consider natural climate change the null hypothesis.

@- krischel says: April 24, 2012 at 8:34 am
“Accuracy of paleo records aside, what makes you think that the MWP could only be caused by CO2 or solar activity? Have you given any thought, to say, ocean circulation patterns, or cosmic ray influences on cloud albedo, or even just variation in cloud albedo? Is your base assumption that outside of the forcings you can imagine, that there are no other causes of natural climate change?”
What makes you think I attribute the MWP (whatever its magnitude or synchronocity) to solar or CO2 changes?
I suspect the source of your confusion is in your misunderstanding of the phrase ‘natural climate change’
Its a description, NOT an explanation.
Climate changes, and it does so as the result of a physical process. all climate change is ‘natural’ as it is an effect with a cause. the only alternative would be supernatural climate change, perhaps the result of your psychic Madame Zoorik or the intervention of the ‘intelligent designer’.
Yes, I have given some thought to ocean circulation patterns, or cosmic ray influences on cloud albedo, or even just variation in cloud albedo. As have the scientific community.
To qualify as a cause any physical process must change the energy balance of the climate. But the problem with invoking any of these speculative unknown alternative causes is that they ALL have to satisfy the LAW of themodynamics. Just what causes cloud albedo changes that affect the energy balance, retaining energy at night but reflecting sunlight, would constrain the amount of forcing it could provide. That again requires some estimate of climate sensitivity to any source of energy imbalance to derive the amount of climate change it would cause.
Cosmic ray in fluence has two counts against it. there is a clear temperature trend when GCR levels have shown negligable variation. There is no evidence of significant climate change during the Lachamps PME 40,000 years ago when a collapse of the geomagnetic field allowed a very large increase in GCRs to occur as seen in the Be10 record in ice cores, but with no associated significant climate change.
IF you are using ‘natural’ in the sense of not human caused then you STILL need a non-human cause for the climate variation. Its a pretty poor ‘null hypothesis’ that assumes that some unspecified and unknown cause is more credible than a measured, quantified and consistant explanation which just happens to invoke a human source for the change in energy imbalance.