What do the terms "Gay Marriage" and "Carbon Pollution" have in common?

"Gay Marriage" and "Carbon Pollution" have a lot in common. They are favorite BUZZ WORDS used by the Greens and their gullible followers, many being in the Australian Labor Party and less so in the Coalition, also in the USA with the Democrat Party of Obama.

The answer is that both terms corrupt the real meaning of perfectly honorable words in the English language. I am against corruption of all types, and deplore the people who do it, so I would not support their causes.

A generalization that is helpful for you to decided who to vote for in the Western democracies is check out each political party and determine their frequency of use of the GREEN BUZZ words (= lies). Vote for the Party that lies the least!!

The word "gay" has its original meaning of showy, lighthearted etc but is now rarely used in this way due to its new link with homosexuality. We all know that marriage is the word to describe the special relationship between a man and a woman, and according to tradition, and the Marriage Act, will always be so, no matter that some people want to change the meaning of these words, and force their dubious ideas onto others.

Exactly the same devious Green process is imbedded in the term "Carbon Pollution". The carbon implied is the gas carbon dioxide which is an invisible harmless atmospheric gas that is vital for the growth of the biosphere and all plant life. The biosphere by photosynthesis produces oxygen which we and animals breath and need for survival.

The Greens are quite mad by demonizing and insisting that the gas be buried (sequestration). In fact, carbon is the most wonderful element in the Periodic Table and produces more chemical compounds than ALL the other elements put together. How dare they INSULT this great element by demonizing it right and left in their anti-carbon based legislation.

"Pollution" is something that is foul and filthy, according to my dictionary. No way can the wonderful gas carbon dioxide be described as polluting. Every day we drink and eat this gas and breath it out into the atmosphere (bread, soft drinks, beer etc).

My view is that these deceptive Green BUZZ WORDS are best avoided, and so too are the people who unthinkingly use them. Many more of these BUZZ WORDS are listed on my Carbon Cycle blog posted below.

Comments about this from my Facebook page:
David Andrew Howard: That's the double bluff. Climate can only change, they clipped it from the longer phrase 'Climate change from anthropogenic global warming', which makes sense but they realised as it wasn't happening they had to do something to keep the illusion going, and it worked. I think it's very easy to underestimate people but not to overestimate them, and Goebbels knew perfectly well how effing thick the majority of people are. Sad to have to say it but 50% of people have a two digit IQ.

Allano addition: The Greens are fond of asking "Do you believe in climate change?" which is a bullshit question because climate, geologically speaking is always in a state of change no matter what humans are doing. Of course I believe in climate change (and being a geologist I probably know more about it than any Greenie). Greenies believe in a static world where Nature has little if any influence (until they get wiped out by a volcanic eruption, earthquake or tsunami) the results of which are quickly hushed up, since MAN is presumed to be the greatest destroyer of the Earth, which is bunkum. If you believe in climate change, then according to the Greens and comrades, then we MUST do something about it and STOP it, by demonizing carbon and taxing it! What bunkum they expect us to believe! Allano

Renewable Energy has a high concentration of Bunkum

In Australia, at last the Federal Coalition is looking at the underlying cause of the continual hike in electricity prices, which is due to the mandated uptake of Green/Labor energy supply (solar and wind) regardless of cost, to meet the 20% renewable energy target by 2020.

So what's the big rush? Why doesnt the Coalition push to amend the legislation by simply changing the target date to year 2200? This gives another 200 years to develop any technologies, and in the meantime we use cheap power from our huge coal and lignite deposits, which are sufficient to last hundreds of years without looking for more.

Rumblings in the Coalition are increasing on this matter. So far, cautious Tony Abbott, Coalition leader, says that most people saw generating renewable energy as an important issue requiring Government support and subsidy. Therefore the Coalition goes along with this idea. Very true! HOWEVER, when such an important issue as energy generation is based on lies and eco-religious bunkum and is causing enormous and undesirable distortion of the Australian economy, the time has come to be brave and rectify matters. The idea of amending the RET legislation by changing the target date to year 2200 is a gentle way of returning to energy sanity.