Climate Common Sense: They Neither Sow Nor Reap- Carbon Parasites

From Al Gore to the big banks and all the players lining up to sell and trade permits to emit carbon , we now have a new kind of parasite on humanity . These freeloaders are taxing the very energy that man needs to survive with artificially created markets and schemes and are swarming like blowflies at a carcass.
A substantial part of the public has been convinced to go along with these snake-oil salsesmen to " save the planet" not realising that it will not make one scrap of difference to the earth while lining the charlatan's pockets. Every part of this massive fraud is financed by " other peoples money" - that includes every useless windmill, unusable solar generator, never-workable carbon capture fairy story and every business-class trip to a Five-star resort for a completely superfluous Gabfest by bloated bureaucrats and paid-for sychophantic scientists.The Washington Times has a good story on those seeking to profit from the AGW scam which is worth reading. Of course we now have a problem where we have to deal with organised crime as well as carbon parasites as in Belgium where it is reported that up to 90% of the trade was fraudulent. The only way to tell the difference is that organised crime is not claiming to save the world

A (Precautionary-)Principled Legislator - William Tucker - Planet Gore on National Review Online

Congressman Edward Markey, co-author of the Waxman-Markey climate-change (read “energy tax”) bill, has come up with a novel reason for being opposed to nuclear power. Even the most rabid environmentalists are willing to admit that, as a powerful source of carbon-free electricity, nuclear energy might be a bit useful in forestalling global warming, if such a thing exists. But Markey has put the cart before the horse. He argues that because of the inevitable climate catastrophes from global warming, nuclear reactors shouldn’t be licensed.

Postcard from the Arctic Sea Ice - Dot Earth Blog - NYTimes.com

[Rhett Herman, a geophysics professor at Radford University] We’re also seeing just how frighteningly thin the ice is. When asked about the thickness of the north polar ice cap many people say things such as “hundreds of feet” and “thousands of feet” and “very thick like the South Pole.” None of these are true. The average thickness of the sea ice over the entire north polar ice cap is only a few meters! There isn’t much ice here, and that’s a major problem. If temperatures change just a few tenths of a degree then this oh-so-thin ice cap is doomed.  [Is that really true?]

[How "frighteningly thin" was the ice in 1922, 1022, or 22 BC? 20,000 years ago, the ice was a mile thick at Chicago, and now it's gone--how "frightening" is that?]