“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 *