Posted on 01/04/2017 11:14:27 AM PST by 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? Its 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.
If the "science is settled", and this is all just basic scientific fact, then why the devious deception campaign?
More than that. All life is dependent on the carbon cycle. Kill CO2, kill life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.