Think for a moment about how the global warming zealots quietly ditched the factually precise term "carbon dioxide" for the more suggestive "carbon". Carbon dioxide, while accurately describing the particular gas in question, is simply not scary-sounding enough. It doesn't sound like a pollutant, which the left would have us believe it is. We are all familiar with it in our daily lives, whether via our own breathing or the bubbles in our soda pop. And we have never witnessed it doing anything nefarious.
The term "carbon" on the other hand elicits images of black soot and sounds much more like a dirty pollutant. Never mind the fact that this image has no connection to the alleged role "carbon" plays in the global warming myth. It is obvious that the left chose to use "carbon" solely because of its propaganda value and not because it in any way accurately describes the gas being referenced.
This, in my mind, is all that anyone needs to know about the global warming debate to conclude that at best the left has a very serious credibility problem on the issue. If the theory is just based upon dispassionate science, then why the need for deception and propaganda?