“Simple Physics – In reality my feather blew up into a tree“. Christmas Guest pudding from Barry Woods. Do you know that climatology theories are only correct under ideal laboratory conditions? After all, the cannonball and the feather only fall at the same rate if there is no wind (hence odd reference to feathers in the post title). This means that in the real world climatology theories can’t possibly be right! Actually, I think “simple physics” says that’s true if they are in a vacuum.
Barry’s hopeful and yet flawed logic lets him grudgingly admit that yes, CO2 can produce a greenhouse effect in glass tube, but continue to stoutly deny that it operates out here in “the real world.”
Too bad climatology principles are actually well-supported by empirical results.
Wott's Up With That? 
Great post. I wonder how they explain the satellite readings of reduced heat loss into space on exactly the wavelengths where CO2, methane, etc are absorbing energy? Maybe that feather fluttered around a bit but in the end it landed exactly where you thought it would, the ground.
well done for completely missing the point ;)
Oh, you were making one? Perhaps you can re-explain your seat-of-the-pants thought(less) experiment.
The best I can figure, aside from your faulty basic math, is that the “realities and complexities and unknowns of climate science” only apply to ‘warmist’ claims and never to those of denialists. And you didn’t like the “No Pressure” PSA.
why so confrontational..
My point was a lot of made of simple physics which are well known, ie the properties of CO2..
What is not well known/understood is the interactions in the climatic system of many varied and complex mechanisms, let alone there overall interactions. It was just an analogy.
Perhaps you need to change your approach, calling people like me ‘denialists’ acheives nothing positive, and merely reflect on yourself. In fact it is totally counter-productive, ie never thought of blogging, etc before all this.
I have friends that are climate scientists and greens, I don’t call them alarmists, they don’t call me a denier. The difference is we know each other well, and do not have pre-conceived ideas about each other.
[Why so “confrontational”? Because you’re blithely spouting crap? Because self-important posturing drowns out intelligent discussion? Because your pretend “acceptance” of GHG physics is merely a fig-leaf to cover your attack on it? Because I confront dishonesty. Your off-topic aside below is a good example of the denialist eagerness to inflate trivialities into attempts to discredit climate science. – Ben]
I thought ‘No pressure’ was a spectacular insight into an insular environmental group. What was most interesting that they thought it would be a good idea. and would not be perceived the way it was….
To quote a Friends of the Earth Board member – in the Guardian..
JohnHalladay
1 October 2010 1:33AM
Actually, I have to say something stronger,
this film is ****ing ridiculous.
I am a local Greenpeace coordinator, and a Board member of Friends of the Earth and I just can’t believe that you have produced a film that is so ****ing stupid.
There, I’ve sworn on the Guardian.
Jesus, where is your common sense. We’re trying to win hearts and minds.
This is just ludicrous.”
He sounds much more ‘upset’ about it than I was…
ie I thought it a spectacular own goal which deserved the laughter it got