June 06, 2017

A green energy scam so stupid, only a government would buy it

Ezra LevantRebel Commander

I’m going to show you a video that seems like it must be a spoof, with some Euro-men talking about how they’re going to save the world by extracting carbon dioxide from the air with a contraption that looks like a massive factory. 

You’ll notice how much steel and plastic is needed for this massive factory.

They claim they’re commercially capturing CO2. You’d think a commercial company would tell you how much a unit would cost. I wasn’t able to find out.

So by commercial they mean they’re ready to accept government money, probably extracted from taxpayers through a carbon tax.

Based on the size and number of the monster units they’re building as seen in their pretty video, you’d need an enormous power source. So what’s it powered by? Coal? Natural gas?

No. The power to run the facility comes from burning garbage.

They’ll spend millions on machines to try to suck CO2 out of the air, which they’ll then pump into a greenhouse for plants to breathe in for photosynthesis.

They’re burning garbage, emitting enormous amounts of CO2, to power a machine to inefficiently capture a fraction of that CO2, that will then be released anyways.

This. Is. A. Scam.

I thought it was a joke, it was so stupid. I thought — it’s junk science, junk commerce, nothing makes sense about it.

But look how pretty it is.

Do you doubt that Justin Trudeau and Catherine McKenna are reading over the brochures for these abominable contraptions, wondering how many thousands to order at taxpayer expense?

Climatologist Tim Ball joins me to discuss Trudeau's green virtue signalling when it comes to Trump's decision on Paris.

Next, Mark Latham, former leader of the Australian Labour Party, joins me to discuss his partnership with The Rebel after becoming “red pilled.”

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2017-06-08 19:56:21 -0400
Andrew Stephenson, do you have a tube in your rectum to measure your farts? I already know about methane studies re: cattle and other livestock.
commented 2017-06-08 12:18:34 -0400
You can’t actually demonstrate it’s a “lie”, nobody’s ever compellingly built a model that explains observed changes as a purely natural phenomenon (and such an argument would require the Right to suddenly accept the same climate models they’ve been attacking as unreliable for decades).

The weakness of your argument is apparent in the Breitbart article, which cherry-pickes a couple dozen graphs, and them misrepresents them (no, said graphs contain no attribution of causality). Further, these graphs are put out by the same scientsists you’ve spent years attacking as “liars”. I’d ask about cognitive dissonance, but I know that that’s something Breitbart readers don’t concern themselves with.

Scheer’s platform included climate change initiatives – see https://web.archive.org/web/20170525150625/http://www.andrewscheer.com/scrap_the_carbon_tax . It says he opposes the tax as an environmental mechanism, not that he opposes the concept of climate change… " He will support a sector by sector approach to reduce greenhouse gases in cooperation with industry and the United States" – same link. That you didn’t understand his platform is not a fault on his end.

Tammie, livestock emissions are a known problem. Believe it or not, we have some damn fine scientists working on that very issue in Canada.
commented 2017-06-08 11:24:36 -0400
You have no arguments Andrew Stephenson, but people like you will never stop. I have to give it to you, your ability to singlemindedly destroy is impressive. You should run for parliament, it’s full of losers like you. It is perfectly clear that any act in the name of climate change is fabricated on a lie. Everyone knows it, why not just be honest. The Paris Accord is nothing but a tool for totalitarian control, wealth distribution and societal upheaval, so the new global ‘restructuring’ can begin (enter uncle Soso and UN thugs). You are either a fool and a bully or an evil bully.

We absolutely won on the facts but we lost thanks to a government who is so addicted to power that they would sell us all down the river for it. For the betterment of politicians not any Canadians. Andrew Scheer was elected under false pretences and there SHOULD be a recount. Buyers remorse doesn’t even cover it. We were out and out deceived. The only good thing about this is that he has shown his true colours quickly. The conservative party as we have known it is dead and Andrew Scheer has put the last nail in it’s coffin. Fini!
commented 2017-06-07 21:44:33 -0400
Andrew Stephenson, please do a study to quantify the impact of cow farts, pig farts and your farts!
commented 2017-06-07 17:32:57 -0400
“Robert Mcclelland commented 2 hours ago
If Andrew had actually looked at the four graphs referred to in Delingpole’s article he would have noticed they completely refute the myth of catastrophic man made global warming. Delingpole asserts there are 80 such graphs contained in the 58 studies that do this. Sorry Andrew the science is clear. "

They do not even attempt to discuss human influences on climate. They’ve observed some local trends but the graphs do not attribute causality.
commented 2017-06-07 15:58:13 -0400
“A green energy scam so stupid, only a government would buy it.”

C’mon now. 64 percent of the electorate cast ballots for Liberals, NDP, and Greens in the last federal election.
commented 2017-06-07 15:55:02 -0400
If Andrew had actually looked at the four graphs referred to in Delingpole’s article he would have noticed they completely refute the myth of catastrophic man made global warming. Delingpole asserts there are 80 such graphs contained in the 58 studies that do this. Sorry Andrew the science is clear.
commented 2017-06-07 12:07:51 -0400
We’ve done our part, and planted 250 seedlings 22 years ago on our property…beautiful trees absorbing C02 in the ambient air! So, I think I should get an exemption from the silly carbon tax scheme.
commented 2017-06-07 11:55:50 -0400
Trudeau’s unwavering commitment to Paris Treaty reminds me of TPIR game, Cliffhanger. The link below sums up what the carbon tax will do to the Canadian economy; the middle class and as Trudeau is fond of saying “and those who want to join the middle class”. Whenever McKenna and Trudeau trot out their talking point on climate change and how the agreement signed in Paris is protecting the planet’s future…. I hear the music from the Cliffhanger game…. yodeedeeyodeedyodee yo dodeedo yo deedo…..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSAeyAV85UM
commented 2017-06-07 11:07:56 -0400
“ames Delingpole of Breitbart News reports that in 2017 there were 58 peer reviewed scientific papers refuting the theory of catastrophic man made global warming. Oh gee it looks like the science isn’t on the climate alarmists side after all. Maybe the 58 scientists are just part of the 3% of scientists who haven’t yet accepted that the climate science is settled? Poor Jr. is about to be exposed as someone who is “on the wrong side of history”. "

A lot of those papers don’t actually refute anything. An observation of a slight warming of ocean temperatures off the shore of Florida in the 20th century certainly does no such thing. If anything, that list of papers clearly illustrates that they’re giving up on the “no change in 19 years” talking point.
commented 2017-06-07 11:05:14 -0400
“Ken Conrad commented 4 hours ago
The epitome of foolishness… As it is plants are starving for CO2.

“If carbon dioxide is so bad for the planet, why do greenhouse growers buy CO2 generators to double plant growth?” "

Because growing a plant in a carefully controlled glass box is not the same thing as a natural ecosystem? In an irrigated, warmed, illuminated, pest-free, hydroponic monoculture of carefully bred plants …. yes, it enhances growth. In the wild, growth is usually limited by some other variable. In Canada that’s typically growing season length – the increased biomass observed in the boreal forest is because winters are getting milder and the growing season longer.
commented 2017-06-07 09:17:38 -0400
from Jouwatch which is like the rebel from Germany
After the construction of mega-mosques in Scandinavia
Sweden has just opened the largest of its kind in Malmo
In Finland, some 65,000 of the 5.5 million inhabitants are Muslim,
and although they have 80 small, the official mosque and the
214 square meter Islamic Multicultural Dawa Center with
the Masjid Iman Mosque – formerly a church – in Helsinki ,
The offer is not enough to spread Islam among the “disbelieving Finns”.
Two years ago – at the height of the so – called refugee crisis, in which
thanks to Angela Merkel 32,000 migrants “conquered the small country”,
the Finnish converted Pia Jardi said there was no real mosque in Helsinki
and has planned to build a 20,000 square meters of Islamic prayer and gathering space,
as a sign that “the Muslims are part of society.”
commented 2017-06-07 08:56:46 -0400
I remember back in the 60’s the forestry industry claimed they planted 2 trees for every tree they cut down. They even had ads on TV claiming that. But, I have seen vast swaths of land where they harvested trees and never ever planted a single tree. Maybe it time to legislate that part. Since no industry does anything more than is required by law
commented 2017-06-07 07:35:10 -0400
James Delingpole of Breitbart News reports that in 2017 there were 58 peer reviewed scientific papers refuting the theory of catastrophic man made global warming. Oh gee it looks like the science isn’t on the climate alarmists side after all. Maybe the 58 scientists are just part of the 3% of scientists who haven’t yet accepted that the climate science is settled? Poor Jr. is about to be exposed as someone who is “on the wrong side of history”.
commented 2017-06-07 02:49:44 -0400
surprise..a french prick. how me a english prick.
commented 2017-06-07 02:29:47 -0400
The company is not named, but is similar to this Vancouver company: Carbon Engineering.
https://www.sciencealert.com/a-canadian-start-up-is-removing-co2-from-the-air-and-turning-it-into-pellets
Let’s see, $200M to remove the CO2 from 100 cars. 100M cars made per year. Only $200 Trillion needed to change the CO2 from cars into pellets.
The sadder fact is that governments can enter into 50 and 70 year agreements to spend $10’s of billions, and impoverish the people far after they are dead. These contracts should be illegal.
commented 2017-06-07 02:17:25 -0400
New Age Lunatics!! Educated into idiots!! …did anyone ever teach these dumb c**ts that CO2 is a natural, organic, & necessary gas for survival of all life???
Eh TruDope – you spend your own GD $$ – you ain’t getting another cent of mine! You spend $$ to threaten me & family’s safety so go FYS! You are a stinkin ratbastard! & stop speaking for me you lunatic POS!

Eh, George Soros – go out back of the barn, you lunatic demon, and put a lead pill through that ugly head of yours – your Nazi fortune is your disease! Your fantasy will ventilate your stupidity!
commented 2017-06-07 01:46:52 -0400
Andrew, no, the Estevan carbon capture plant is not the same thing. Do the mass and energy balance to see (chemical engineering). Besides, the co2 captured from the coal combustion at Estevan is pipelined to nearby oilfields where it has a value-added economic use to enhance oil recovery.

Carbon dioxide capture is most ecomically done on high concentration waste gas streams, such as from methane reformers (almost pure co2). In Estevan they extract co2 from coal combustion flue gas … expensive as the co2 concentration at about 30% is not as high as 100%, although this concentration is still about 100,000 times higher than that in our atmosphere. So, Andrew, you are off by about 10 million %.

Your other comments make even less sense. Don’t give up … keep studying.

Patrick Moore provides an excellent treatise on the effect, or lack thereof, of co2 on climate at:
https://youtu.be/5Smhn1gL6Xg

Maurice, love your comments on God being the best co2 capture plant designer.
commented 2017-06-07 01:44:59 -0400
Andrew Stephenson whether or not your numbers are real means very little if we let the huge polluters off the hook and punish small time polluters like Canada. So garbage like the Paris agreement mean absolutely nothing when they allow larger increases that dwarf any decreases. How about you do some math on that aspect.
commented 2017-06-07 01:40:22 -0400
Andrew Stephenson even at the rate of the non absorption you posted, how long will it take? I doubt your numbers , but even if true , you are leaving out the period of time and the ratio is still pathetically minuscule. And please tell us how this plant and tax money will do anything about that?
commented 2017-06-07 01:36:28 -0400
Andrew Stephenson the plant in Sask is creating power , this thing does nothing. How friggin stupid are you to compare the two?
commented 2017-06-07 01:26:59 -0400
I share Ezra’s excitement regarding the new partnership with “Australia’s Outsiders”. Does this mean that A Rebel can post a question to the Outsiders commenters ? ( such as ) I have heard that PM Turnbull is like Trudeau in that they are both fans of Islam. Is this also true regarding Turnbull ?
commented 2017-06-07 01:26:48 -0400
Your story of the CO2 capture factory is indeed incredible and extremely hard to believe.
Almost as hard to believe as Andrew Scheer voting with Climate Barbie and Justin on the Paris Accord.
I never would have thought in a million years that the new CPC leader could be dumber than Trudeau.
I was wrong.
I guess next election I’ll be voting Libertarian or Independent; something other than Liberal Lite (CPC).
Andrew Scheer you disappoint me. You’re a puppet of the dumbest prime minister Canada ever had.
commented 2017-06-07 01:10:24 -0400
Climatologist Tim Ball brought up Maurice Strong for good reason. Maurice Strong was obsessed with global depopulation, was a contributing architect of UN Agenda 21, and believed a global carbon tax should be implemented to finance UN directives (Our Global Neighbourhood, 1995). This article about Maurice Strong is a must read for Canadians: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/maurice-strong-father-of-the-globalist-eco-control-movement

Maurice Strong BBC Interview on population in 1972: (6 minutes) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cwNJQiOnqaY&ebc=ANyPxKqX79eQJeRfW6jxy2MT0ZHK2yBrRb-fk36Uf7YUzQidIyguJrXZfbk3j-Bg37XoucOHF4EHBPUp0X70XCiO6jSo90ZArQ
The Population Bomb? (13 minutes) https://m.youtube.com/watch?ebc=ANyPxKqX79eQJeRfW6jxy2MT0ZHK2yBrRb-fk36Uf7YUzQidIyguJrXZfbk3j-Bg37XoucOHF4EHBPUp0X70XCiO6jSo90ZArQ&v=W8XOF3SOu8I
UN Agenda 21 in less than 5 minutes: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=govL-fUAwMA
commented 2017-06-07 01:01:35 -0400
I have no doubt that Trudeau and his acolytes would be very interested in the scam CO2 collector company since those gigantic machines are built of steel and he could give the contract to the Chinese corrupt gov’t. He admires them so much, remember. And who cares if they pollute China more. No Canadian would see what their money has been used for.
commented 2017-06-06 22:50:14 -0400
Don’t knock these green schemes and carbon taxes. Haven’t you heard the real news? They’ve caused the weather to take a turn for the better all over the globe.
commented 2017-06-06 21:57:30 -0400
“Human activity contributes about 4% of that 0.04%. "

Math question for the conservatives – what’ the percent increase when you go from 270ppm to 410?

That number might refer to the total flux, but it’s not flux that matters, it’s concentration. Sure, 4% of total turnover … but 2% of that’s not being reabsorbed, leading to accumulation. This claim is deliberately misleading.

“The greenhouse effect from CO2 diminishes as concentrations rise (doubling CO2 does not double the greenhouse produced – there’s a diminishing return)”

It’s close enough to 1:1 at current levels, that effect only really matters when you’re near saturation (aborption = 100%). When it’s much lower, the effect is negligible, and that’s basically where we are especially in the upper atmosphere where absorption really matters. although present. A doubling in carbon could lead to a 1.99x increase in heat retention … and this statement would still be true, although trivial.
commented 2017-06-06 21:51:56 -0400
I wonder how you feel about Brad Wall’s power plant in Estevan, that does exactly the same thing?
commented 2017-06-06 21:50:16 -0400
Someone asked me once “If Gods real, why did he screw around with dinosaurs?”
I said so we could have oil.
How would I know what God thinks?
He could hit this planet with a meteor today and there’s nothing you can do.