Let’s Stop with the Carbon Con Already

Canada Free Press ^ | 01/04/17 | Selwyn Duke

[Sean_Anthony]

Rejecting “carbon” talk. As for those knowingly using the term for propaganda purposes, they should have a huge carbon footprint placed firmly on their carbon-based posteriors

The side that defines the vocabulary of a debate, wins the debate. So we could ask: as we fight the global-warming scam, why are we using the language of the scammers? It’s harder to combat “carbon” taxes, “carbon” credits and callow “carbon” appeals if we accept that at issue is “carbon.”

Calling CO2 “carbon” is like calling H2O “hydrogen.” Carbon is about as useful to a plant aspiring to photosynthesize as a tank of hydrogen is to a dehydrated man in a desert. Carbon dioxide and carbon are not the same thing any more than a fox and foxglove are the same thing.

[noiseman]

I've been pointing this out for a long time. The switch to referencing "carbon" was a clear attempt to deceive by conjuring mental images of smokestacks belching out black smoke and soot. This went hand-in-hand with the climate charlatans also referencing carbon dioxide (sorry, "carbon") as "air pollution."

If the "science is settled", and this is all just basic scientific fact, then why the devious deception campaign?

[D Rider]

More than that. All life is dependent on the carbon cycle. Kill CO2, kill life.