Scepticism is intrinsic to the advance of science but if you wish to be identified as an AGW sceptic rather than a denialist, you need demonstrated scientific competence. The way you parrot on about CO2 and carbon shows your ignorance pal. That means I categorise you as a denialist. If you feel insulted, that's a pity but it isn't my intention to insult. If you prefer to be identified as a sceptic, then you need to demonstrate some scientific competence.
Your "...NOT carbon" is one example where you shout rather that logically argue. If you used some knowledge of chemistry, perhaps you could present an argument but you do not do this and I draw the inference that you have too little understanding to make valid sceptical judgements.
I say dumping waste carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is filthy carbon pollution and there are plenty of precedents for labelling a compound with one of its constituent elements. Here's a couple of examples.
Lead tetroxide Pb3O4 is commonly known as red lead. It's still used as a paint pigment in some places and here in Oz, there is a good chance it will be present in old painted metal. Sandblast the metal piece and you could be breathing contaminated dust. In fact loads of lead compounds were and sometimes still are used in paints. For example white lead and litharge can both produce toxic paint dust. Breathe that dust and you get lead poisoning. The significant element provides the name.
Burn carbon for its energy and the waste product almost invariable gets dumped into the atmosphere. The significant element in that product is carbon and dumping this filthy carbon pollution without penalty is becoming increasingly unacceptable.
