Enough gunk! We need fresh air in the debate | The Australian

What's in a name? The lie. For the truth is that it is not a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, but a Carbon Dioxide -- pollution or not -- reduction scheme.

Just a minor difference? An understandable, even appropriate, abbreviation? No way. The difference is huge and quite deliberate. It's not even "justified" on the basis of a snappy acronym. CPRS or CDPRS -- neither has the vowel necessary for snappiness.

There's no question the continual harping on "carbon pollution" is intended to send a subliminal impression. We're getting rid of all those little bits of black stuff floating around in the air. And who can possibly be against that?

Australian Climate Madness: Fairfax fantasy - green power is so cheap

Always desperate to plug the green agenda, The Sydney Morning Herald gleefully swallows a WWF report that claims Australia could build a low-carbon economy based on solar, wind and geothermal power for less than half the cost of the Government's economic stimulus package.

Lubchenco’s Goals on Oceans and Climate - Dot Earth Blog - NYTimes.com

Q. Will you continue the work you’ve done trying to improve how scientists communicate findings pointing to human-driven climate change and the consequences for society?

A. It’s becoming harder and harder to deny that changes are under way. The science is just so overwhelming. In terms of specific groups of people and just citizens, we have an obligation to provide information to Americans about climate and other changes and that information needs to be relevant to their lives and credible, obviously, and understandable to them.