Guide to "Layman's guide to the climate debate."

Bronwyn Lay says: "One is a climate change denier, the other a believer..."
I think she actually means Anthropogenic Global Warming sceptic (realist) and believer (alarmist). If she asked any of the realists, they would tell her that they agree that climate changes, that climate has always changed.

So, both sides of the argument should be described as climate change believers.

The confusion came about when the alarmists realised warming had stalled and had to find an alternate term to global warming.

As a Masters of English Lit, I'm sure Bronwyn would prefer to use correct terminology.

Pollutant to be used to combat non-pollutant

From Reuters: 15 Dec 06: By Ari Rabinovitch

TEL AVIV, Dec 15 (Reuters) - Nobel Prize laureate Paul Crutzen says he has new data supporting his controversial theory that injecting the common pollutant sulphur into the atmosphere would cancel out the greenhouse effect.

Though such a project could not be implemented for at least 10 years, the data is aimed at appeasing critics of the idea he first championed in the scientific journal Climatic Change in August.

From THE LAND (Link in title) 5/9/09 by Deborah Smith

THE future of the planet could rest on risky and unproven technologies, such as giant sunshades in space to cool the Earth down, if global talks to reduce carbon dioxide emissions fail, a scientific report warns.

Other last-resort, global engineering projects that may be needed to try to avoid catastrophic climate change include forests of artificial trees, ships that spray seawater to form clouds, and injecting sulphur particles into the atmosphere to mimic volcanic activity.

There has been no possitive link to say that CO2 causes Global Warming, in fact, there have been papers to disprove that hypothesis. So, even though we have an oxymoronically named Carbon Pollution Reduction scheme here in Australia, no-one can say, truthfully, that Carbon (Dioxide) is pollution.

What is air pollution?

Air pollution occurs when the air is affected by chemicals or particles that are not normally present and have the potential to affect health. (NSW Department of Health)

So, carbon dioxide is normally present in air, and, although it does affect health, it affects health beneficially, whereas, sulphur is not normally present in air and does have the potential to affect health adversely.

So, here we have scientists from Britain's "most prestigious science body, the Royal Society," suggesting injecting a pollutant into the atmosphere to combat a non-pollutant.

The world's gone crazy, Cotillion.