While it is true that language can be used to distort and demonise, I don't think using "carbon" as shorthand for "carbon dioxide" has any sinister ulterior motive. It is just convenient.

Why bother to publish this nonsense?

It is a complete waste of time arguing with some people and this author appears to be one such. It takes a certain kind of determination to intentionally ignore the flood of evidence that demonstrates the validity and effects of global heating due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions and to ignore the effects of reducing alkalinity of the oceans on all forms of aquatic life that depend on calcium compounds either as bones or shells. It takes a very thick skin to announce that to the world, ie the real world, where climate change is real, observable and unavoidable.

However, as with many discussions, both sides cannot be correct. The one with the best argument and strongest facts and strongest grip on reality will, in the end, win out.

Tough luck, Tom Harris. You are spruiking for the losing team, but we both know that you won't listen to opinion or reason to the contrary.

Yes , John Bennetts, this flood of evidence, to which you refer, has been examined and so far, despite the outlay of billions, and a huge scientific effort there has been no scientific demonstration of a measurable effect of human emissions on climate. Assertion of anthropogenic global warming is fraudulent.

Unless you are able to refer us to science which shows any measurable effect of human emissions on climate, John, you are a fraud-backer, in the same category as the IPCC, or Michael Mann, of hockey stick infamy.
There is peer reviewed science in this regard:
. Three Australasian researchers have shown that natural forces are the dominant influence on climate, in a study just published in the highly-regarded Journal of Geophysical Research. According to this study little or none of the late 20th century global warming and cooling can be attributed to human activity.
The research, by Chris de Freitas, a climate scientist at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, John McLean (Melbourne) and Bob Carter (James Cook University), finds that the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a key indicator of global atmospheric temperatures seven months later. As an additional influence, intermittent volcanic activity injects cooling aerosols into the atmosphere and produces significant cooling.”
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=18243

Leo Lane, I propose we wait until more irrefutable evidence is in!
Say like a 3 metre average rise in ocean levels, and given trends, before the turn of the century?
One hopes that you and your ilk; and their kids, will live to see the day, and be the ones made to pay, to fix it!
Say with a 90%+ tax on every dollar of income, from every citizen; and a complete scrapping of all welfare, which will no longer be affordable, given a 3 metre rise in sea levels, will wipe out around 70% of our domestic economy!
So continue to cheery pick and or, refute credible cogent evidence, and unexamined!
It seems the best way to achieve that, is to bury your head somewhere warm and comfortable.
Take care not to hurt your ears!
Cheers Rhrosty.

Rhosty,you choose to back the fraud of AGW, to the detriment of society. A bad choice, qualifying you for the Hall of Shame, which Nigel Calder says awaits fraud-backers. Fraud backing is based on ignorance or dishonesty. You choose to ignore the science, so I suppose your basis is ignorance.As Nigel Calder says::“ so many eminent folk from science, politics, industry, finance, the media and the arts to be taken in by man-made climate catastrophe. (In London, for example, from the Royal Society to the National Theatre.) Sadly for them, in the past ten years they’ve crowded with their warmist badges into a Hall of Shame, like bankers before the crash”
http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-ray-action/

There is no science which demonstrates a measurable effect of human emissions on climate. The effect is not measurable, because it is trivial and insignificant. To represent otherwise is fraudulent.

Nothing will convince those who are willingly blind.
I doubt that water lapping at their feet would convince them.
As with all ideologues their dogma has them by the balls and if reality does not fit the dogma then reality must be at fault and to hell with logic and reason. Stupid people best avoided.