Philology. Study it. We need it more than ever. Become a philologist. Love words. Care about the logos. Why? Because our words lie and conceal the truth. Let’s just consider one example: the word ‘carbon’.
What does carbon mean?
As usual, it means different things to different political sides. Most simply,
- For the standard Establishment sheeplike administrator whose highest ambition is to be standing around while Burnham makes an inspirational postmanpatlike speech about delivery: carbon means filth, dirt, soot, pollution, capitalism, corporations, oil spills, refinery skylines, bad consciences, global warming, climate crisis, etc.
- For those of us on the other side: carbon means, alas, the stupidity associated with making a fuss about all of that: it means the ideology of that, the jolly hockeysticks and mad modelling and dubious data. It is nothing to do with us. It is an imposition. Aye, as usual, we are playing black, not white (chess metaphor). We didn’t start it: they did.
Carbon is, of course, an element. So all of this language is bogus. For what ‘carbon’ really is, here, is a synecdoche for ‘carbon dioxide’.
Let us look at the strange word ‘decarbonisation’. Looked at literally, it makes almost no sense. Taking the carbon out of something is far from easy, and certainly not a standard sort of activity. (Well, I suppose mining coal could considered decarbonising the ground.)
The Cambridge Dictionary says it is:
The process of stopping or reducing carbon gases, especially carbon dioxide, being released into the atmosphere
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Very clever and entertaining article. I love this, taking words and showing what they really mean shows us the weaselly tricks being played on us.
I am a geologist, hence everyone who is not a geologist is at a distinct disadvantage when debating the net zero bollocks with me. Ian Plimer has written a primer for children that inexplicably is not essential reading lest they become irretrievably brain-washed by the morons who do not understand how the biosphere works.
None of our glorious politicians seem to know what they are talking about in general.
Reminds me of an occasion when the Autocue failed, and the presenter went silent in front of the audience. I think was Neil Kinnock – but it probably happens to others as well.
It originates with the UN and their intention to “level down” the west and transfer money to Africa and Asia.
“Global warming’ is not about the science – UN Admits: ‘Climate change policy is about how we redistribute the world’s wealth’
https://www.climatedepot.com/2017/05/24/global-warming-is-not-about-the-science-un-admits-climate-change-policy-is-about-how-we-redistribute-the-worlds-wealth/
In the EU/UK, it’s a scam, intended to reward the (self-selecting) chosen few at the expense of the “undeserving” many. And the CONs have pushed the nonsense just as much, if not more, than the lefties.
Ridding the world of carbon is as fatal as ridding oursleves of cholesterol.
Perhaps Douglas Adams was familiar with some of the science fiction stories that suggested the existence of non-carbon based alien life forms, e.g. in Star Trek, or Dr. Who.
Decarbonisation consultant = diamond thief
‘Decarbonisation’ means switching from the use of fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas or oil to carbon-free and renewable energy sources.. ‘
All of which require massive amounts of “carbon” to produce. Without “carbon” windmills, solar panels, etc could not be manufactured, transported, constructed.
And anyway China and India are not switching – they are burning more.
We also have other Eco-gobbledegook. Sustainable – as in sustainable farming. Can we have an example of non-sustainable farming? It’s been around for about five thousand years – seems sustainable to me.
We now have “regenerative” farming which is the methods prior to industrialisation when people went hungry and starved due to lack of food production, failed harvests, etc.
Then there is “responsibly sourced” – example please of irresponsibly sourced.
Plant life is the base of the food chain. All animals eat plants or eat animals that do or, as with Humans, eat both. Below 150ppm concentration of atmospheric C02 plant life would cease to exist – animal life too.
The ancestors of current day plants evolved when C02 was 4 000 to 6 000ppm. So they are currently gasping for breath.
Commercial greenhouses pay £thousands to install CO2 regulating… Read more »
How would forestry be sustainable if foresters did not plant new trees – or nurture natural regen? And yet the ignorant mewl over clear felling of crops of trees. Having trees of different ages across a woodland provides a more varied wildlife as strangely not every species has evolved to like exactly the same thing.
Regenerative farming does have some good points but I switch off as soon as sequestering carbon dioxide comes up.
Net is the wretched obfuscation that our useless uniparty governments love so much but that three letter word conceals so much evil. Let’s not achieve gross zero, let’s have net zero carbon, which means that fraudsters can go to companies and take money from them to plant horrendous monoculture woodlands that destroy the environment. Let’s achieve net zero immigration, which means exporting millions of hardworking, tax paying people and replacing them with low skilled, often unemployable immigrants that will destroy the economy. We need honesty from promoters of the net cults as to what they really want. Me, I’ll take more CO2 and no low skilled migrants.
Not only is carbon the biochemical basis of (pretty much) all life on Earth but it is plant food. The more you give them the better they do. Therefore the moronic narrative peddled by Milliband and his like, astride the world stage, exhorting us to reduce CO2 in fact flies in the face of ending world hunger, as the recently reported greening of the world generates more plant based food, which animals can eat, producing milk and more animals which other animals like us can then eat. That’s without even mentioning fish. You would almost think they had an alternative agenda or didn’t know what they really talking about.
Are you seriously suggesting that government ministers don’t know what they’re talking about?
Hard to believe I know.
I believe the UK FIRES report (presumably still available online) was about Gross zero, or absolute zero as they called it. And pretty grim reading it makes, too.
I always thought the ‘Net’ in Net Zero was to enable a slippery politician (for some reason I imagine Boris Johnson) to declare that, as a nation, we had prevented x amount of emissions, and planted y trees, therefore we had reached our net target; cue fanfare, knighthoods, champagne buffet, etc. However, the longer the carbon madness continues, the less I believe this – they really won’t be content until Britain is an agricultural society again – collectivised agriculture, of course, as it has proved such a success elsewhere.
Another way in which we are being lied to is when emissions are presented per capita – presumably a ruse to make us feel worse about ourselves, even though the national carbon footprint is less than 0.8% of the total. But if ‘the planet’ ‘cares’ about carbon dioxide at all, it surely only cares about the total volume/concentration.
I think the goal of FIRES was an absolute zero of humans in the UK.
The left (ie most of the political class) has been distorting words for decades. This article reminds us how hard it has gone.
Sometimes bad usage is repeated by otherwise meritorious people. Porter, for example, is wrong to describe the effects as “decimation” when the effect will be a multiple of one in ten.
shes using the modern meaning of that expression…
If you control the language, you control thought.
Asking bullshitters to stop bullshitting is a bullshit idea.
The “net” part isn’t just aesthetic. It’s the basis of the entire grift.
Companies can pay to emit carbon and pay for some activity that has officially been deemed to “offset” the emussions (which is total bullshit).
That is the whole point of the climate change, net zero and the rest of it. It’s another way for socialists (i.e. thieves) to loot the productive part of society and fund themselves.
It’s the same as allowing me to drive my dirty, 20 year old deisel car into London. As long as I pay. I bet it confuses the life out of the good people of our capital.
“He can’t drive that smokey old thing round here. He’s killing us!”
“Nah, it’s alright. He’s coughed up his 15 quid”
And if you have an even older vehicle you do not have to pay.
But that is how Socialism hijacks things. By tacking on an additional mission. Like tacking on ESG or DEI to companies and organisations.
Of course they contradict snd derail the original purpose. That’s the point. If it already did what they wanted it to, they wouldn’t need to hijack it.
Duh!!
I attended a meeting of my local u3a last week. I was shocked to learn that its policies included DEI. Given that it relies for its continued existence on people joining (and stumping up fees) I’d have thought that the inclusion bit was how it operates. But, no, it’s legally bound to have a DEI policy.
The U3a is thoroughly captured and a mouthpiece for the state. Lots of seemingly harmless old folk retired from the lanyard class who enthusiastically endorse mass uncontrolled immigration, DEI and particularly the Climate Crisis ‘for the sake of our grandchildren’.
My local U3a has a ‘world current affairs’ discussion group, where they all agree with each other. I know I would not be welcome
I cannot provide hard evidence that the government hate us, but what I can say with complete certainty that IF a government DID truly hate the people, they would deliberately make food and energy scarce and expensive.
I would challenge the Cambridge dictionary’s use of the politically loaded term fossil fuels as opposed to the correct technical name hydrocarbons.
Keyword – Cambridge. How sad.
Yes. Hydrocarbons. Not all are refined for fuels. Oil, coal, gas produce myriad other stuff essential for our economies and way of life.
Those of us who also love words would like to remind Kathryn Porter that decimating means reducing by one tenth.
Oooh. I thought it meant “reduce TO one tenth”? Hmmm.
No, it’s to remove one in ten…
It seems that was original meaning, but modern use is:
Modern Meaning: To cause widespread destruction or wipe out a large portion of a group, population, or structure.
which is how I understand it. Interesting to learn the original use though – didn’t know that, but makes sense…
Years ago, the Chairman of the public inquiry into the Archway Road Improvement Scheme, in answer to someone asking whether it should be called an Improvement Scheme, when the whole point of the Inquiry was to say whether it was an improvement or not, ruled that in modern English you could have an improvement for better or worse.
You are totally correct. Decimation was the punishment inflicted on Roman legions, cohorts and centuries who had failed and embarrassed the army. Lots would be drawn and the losing ten percent of the soldiers would be killed by their colleagues to encourage the survivors not to fail again.
Decimation refers to the practice in Roman legions where if a Century or whole legion didn’t fight bravely enough, ran away – one in ten was chosen then beaten to death with wooden staves by their comrades.
It was discontinued after a while.
I guess repeated decimations ends up with not many legionnaires and far fewer cohorts.
Carbon is not a toxin. It is a core chemical for life. Is this what the morons are trying to eliminate?
Carbon dioxide does not cause weather over 50 years. It falls out of climatic processes, which contain about 1 million variables, including Solar irradiation.
Carbon dioxide is a rounding error trace chemical. A mole fraction.
Carbon dioxide is 95% manufactured by Gaia.
90% of Carbon dioxide is reused in natural processes.
There is no glass ceiling in the atmosphere, the system is open.
There is no crisis.
No need to discuss carbon anything. Period.
Pretty much what I was going to say
Out of the %0.042 carbon gas in the atmosphere %0.0016 is human created (from carbon substances that were already on or in the earth!)
Should it lower to %0.02 of the atmosphere plant life begins to die! As you say, How is this a good thing?
As has been pointed out, it’s us they want to decarbonise.