For if car­bon diox­ide can be called ‘car­bon pol­lu­tion’, in this or any oth­er uni­verse, in this or any oth­er real­i­ty, well then rain has to be called ‘hydro­gen pol­lu­tion’.” Extract from Ter­ry McCrann in the Her­ald Sun


  • Disin­gen­u­ous anti-sci­ence. Stick to eco­nom­ics.

  • Hi Slim,

    I don’t think this is about ‘sci­ence’ only about spin: the sil­ly labels that some of our polit­i­cal lead­ers want to attach to things that are “good” and things that are “bad” in their rather sim­ple-mind­ed plans.

    I thought McCrann hit the right note. If the car­bon in car­bon-diox­ide, which is a vital com­po­nent of the nat­ur­al cycles that sus­tain life (res­pi­ra­tion, food) is a pol­lu­tant (“CPRS”), then so is the hydro­gen in rain.

    I sus­pect that many peo­ple who accept the man-made car­bon-diox­ide the­o­ry of warm­ing (I don’t) would also agree that this spin is ridicu­lous and should not play a part in pub­lic pol­i­cy deci­sions.



  • I accept your point about spin, but the sci­en­tif­ic anal­o­gy is fatu­ous. We’d hap­pi­ly sur­vice in a room with 30% water, but die quick­ly with the same amount of CO2. Insuf­fi­cient glu­cose or water in our blood­stream and we die. Too much glu­cose or water in our blood­stream and we die.

Leave a Reply

Your email is never shared.Required fields are marked *