United Kingdom Madhouse

Thanks Equivocal. 
I doubt they'll look at it. 
So for them. The conclusion is that Connolly et al made many statistical errors to reach conclusion that the sun is causing global warming. 

SOLAR WARMING IN BLUE. CONNOLLY SOLAR IN ORANGE. WARMING IN BLACK.

There is no evidence that 90+% of world climate scientists think that CO2 is the primary cause of warming - and you have no evidence to show this. Even if you did it's not what scientists "think" that matters - it's whether the theory makes accurate predictions.

And my data on urban areas is taken from reputable sources - but as I said is irrelevant anyway. All you need to do to get a rough sanity check of how much cooling rural areas cause is to compare temperatures in two sites in equivalent places, one rural and one urban. And the difference is substantial - way greater than the 1.1C attributed to CO2. Since the albedo of both is roughly the same that should be a rough measure of the cooling of photosynthesis. You need to explain why - but it's another question that you just ignore. 

As for my academic background I've obviously got O-levels but also A-levels and S-levels in chemistry, physics and maths. Then I did physics at Cambridge and did a PhD then worked in research until I moved on to working in computing (no money is science). But that doesn't make me an "expert" at anything - certainly not climate science. The thing is that when you study a subject an detail (which you probably have never done) it makes you aware of how little we really know. Science is never settled. And climate change study is at a VERY early stage. In a hundred years we'll laugh at the CO2 theory just as we laugh at the phlogiston theory.  

Yes, the methodology and logic never go.

I've also been very interested in music all my life - although, in this case, I haven't been formally trained. I remember a few years ago there was a thread on a music forum that I follow that was talking about "music theory". There was so much bollocks being spouted I had to tell them a bit about theory, because I tend to look at everything from a scientific viewpoint - I can't help it.

So I pointed out that the "theory of music" started and ended in about 500BC with Pythagoras designing the scales from a mathematical point of view. All that's happened since then is that people have designed a system of terminology that is so bonkers that no one can have a sensible discussion about music without ending up in an argument about what the terminology means.

The problem is that the Pythagorean scale had 12 notes - i.e. A# was not the same as Bb, etc. But with the modern equal temperament there are only 8. So the whole concept of "keys" goes out of the window - and modes. Yet the musical stave is stuck in 500BC where people have to learn different keys and talk about nonsense like augmented thirds and diminished fourths and perfect fifths etc etc. It's all nonsense - and they have a whole load of exams that test them on this pointless terminology.

So I wrote a post pointing this out - and that music theory was bollocks and that you could remove most of the difficulties that students have learning music by adopting a 12 note chromatic scale, eliminating keys and modes and making every chord (of a particular type) look exactly the same wherever it was on the stave. Because the problem with music was/is that equal intervals are represented on an irregular interval stave.

The really funny thing is that this - completely incontrovertible - fact caused a HUGE amount of anger among the musical community, who have spent their whole time engaging in pedantic arguments about terminology without realising that it's all meaningless. There was a massive "pile-on" with most people being very insulting - in a discussion about musical theory!. 

Some people just think how they're told to think and can't think for themselves.

I never doubted you, only you doubted me. I don't fling out unnecessary insults about peoples intelligence just to score stupid kiddies points, but only after repeat attacks on me. 
For me what you write on here is either right or wrong, if its right I say so. If I'm wrong I say so. 
Just saying. 

What are the conclusions of the scientific community? One part of that Community has produced a paper stating x and indicating the IPCC were wrong in their assumptions. Another part of that community has produced a paper to say that x was wrong and the assumptions contained therein were wrong. The conclusions of the scientific community is that they seldom agree on anything. I may repeat it if those stating x comeback with sound reasons why those critical of them are wrong. But it is science it is far from settled in any direction and probably never will be and that, as ever, is the point.

So you don't. 

You asked if I accepted a conclusion from a community. We do not know what the conclusions of that community are, we know the IPCC conclusions but they are not the scientific community. It is not the scientific community that is querying the findings, it is another group of scientists in the same community. They may be right, they may be wrong they may be both right and wrong but that outlook holds for all such published papers that are queried. I accept that it has been queried and that there are questions as regards the Connolly paper that should be addressed. This is called acceptance of critical appraisal, you ought to try it, it may work wonders for you.