Just When You Thought Climate Experts Couldn’t Get Any More Cynical Or Stupid …

How the left sees CO2

I was driving up to Fort Collins last night in a traffic jam, along with tens of thousands of other green concerned citizens pumping huge amounts of life giving, odorless, invisible CO2 into the atmosphere. I saw at least five accidents on the way up, which is pretty typical for drug-affected Colorado drivers.

As is normally the case, the local rock-and-roll stations were playing lousy music with lots of commercials, so I turned on NPR. I was absolutely stunned by what I heard. They had a story about carbon capture. The gist of the story was :

  1. Scientists agree that unless we reduce dangerous carbon emissions, the world will pass the 2C warming level, leading to climate catastrophe.
  2. Scientists also say that we will have to additionally suck CO2 out of the air, and may have to do this for centuries. The technology is difficult and consumes a lot of energy.
  3. Some carbon capture companies are already doing this, and selling the CO2 to greenhouses who release it into the air- which makes plants grow faster.

It sounds like something from The Onion, but I looked it up online and there are hundreds of news stories about it.

EU to embrace CO2 recycling

So they spend huge amounts of money and energy removing life-giving CO2 from the atmosphere, and pump more CO2 into the atmosphere in the process. Then they transport the CO2 in trucks, thus generating even more CO2. And when they get to their destination (greenhouses) they simply release the CO2 back into the atmosphere.

So the net result of this process is an increase in atmospheric CO2 and faster growing, healthier plants in greenhouses. Why not simply leave the healthy, life stimulating CO2 in the atmosphere, and let plants outside the greenhouses grow faster?

The companies doing this are scamsters relying on the extreme stupidity of people on the left.  NPR stories never question their fundamental superstition that CO2 is dangerous, and that all scientists agree we must reduce reduce CO2 or face a climate catastrophe.

And this is what CO2 actually looks like – at the Rawhide coal fired generating station which supplies Fort Collins.

We are dealing with dangerously stupid people – off scale levels of stupidity.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to Just When You Thought Climate Experts Couldn’t Get Any More Cynical Or Stupid …

  1. Chris says:

    Unbelievable. Actually, nothing surprises me when it comes to these people.

  2. R. Shearer says:

    Ironically, all of the MJ grow houses in Colorado use CO2 at about the 1000 ppm level to increase productivity.

    On the industrial recovery of CO2, it actually makes economic sense to do so in many cases. Highly concentrated CO2 streams are associated with various chemical plants, refineries, fermentation processes (breweries for example) and natural gas wells. It is relatively easy to purify and compress the CO2 in many instances. Coors in Golden and AH in Ft. Collins recover a lot of CO2 that they sell. It beats just dumping the CO2.

    Greenhouse use and soda carbonation are two of many needs fulfilled by CO2 recovery for which suppliers make a profit. Of course these suppliers are not stupid, and they will gladly take and even promote additional government payments for doing so.

    It doesn’t make sense for recovering CO2 from most power plants because the combustion gases are less concentrated in CO2 making it more costly to purify and compress, and of course there is a limit market demand.

    • Squidly says:

      What you say is certainly true. I would remind that CO2 also happens to be the most widely used industrial coolant in the world. There are many uses for CO2. CO2 is indeed the gas of life.

    • Robertv says:

      “Of course these suppliers are not stupid, and they will gladly take and even promote additional government payments for doing so.”

      Government has no money. They have what they steal from The People. Big Government is a cancer for a healthy economy. It will eventually kill it.

  3. Tim Chapman says:

    So up here in SW Ontario Canada most, if not all greenhouses operate this way. Due to our govt’s collosal fail to FORCE renewables upon us our energy rates have skyrocketed. In order to survive, most greenhouses installed Natural Gas turbines to make cheaper power. The heat is captured to heat the greenhouses during winter and the CO2 is also captured to boost the plant growth. Win,win,win for the farmers. So another classic case of the left using the smallest sliver of truth (using CO2 in greenhouses) to push their agenda, which as you say Tony is completely asinine and produces more of what they claim is killing us. (It isn’t) It seems the left spends too much time taking gender studies classes and have failed to grasp even basic mathematic skills……

  4. Kris Johanson says:

    The CO2 in your mouth right now is about 40,000 ppm. It isn’t “poisonous”. It’s a beautifully designed molecule with just the right configuration and bond strengths and molecular weight for the Plant Kingdom to use as a carbon source from which to build starches and cellulose and lignin. If the atmosphere didn’t have it, where would we get our food, ultimately?
    Carbon MONOxide (CO) is the poisonous one.

  5. sunsettommy says:

    Stupidity=Leftism

  6. Steven Fraser says:

    I was at a greenhouse farm in Ontario a number of years ago when the CO2 delivery truck arrived, connected up, and did its thing. This was before my awareness of the technique and its benefit. The owner of the farm gave me a 20 min explanation of all the productivity and recycling systems used by the facility: Temperature control, water and nutrient distribution, runoff testing, CO2 replenishment, plant substrates, even the use of predator species for undesirable bugs. I do not recall if he mentioned the ppm of CO2 used, but there was a formidable evaporation unit on the eastern wall of the facility, which frosted over during the delivery.

    A key factor in the CO2 technique was the need for replenishment. Actively growing plants outside are replenished by air flows. In a greenhouse, airflow is restricted by the walls. At sunrise, the plants deplete the CO2 in the air rapidly.

    In one article on the topic:

    https://www.naturalnews.com/039720_carbon_dioxide_myths_plant_nutrition.html

    The author suggests that greenhouses should be built right next to CO2 sources, to use the CO2 that is generated there. Perhaps Coors would consider growing some of their own hops in Golden greenhouses. :-) BTW, CO2 from brewing often needs to have sulfides separated, as their presence is undesirable for the bottle-purging purposed re-use of CO2, as is often done.

  7. gator69 says:

    It would take some seriously bad music, and virtually nonstop commercials to force me onto NPR’s teet…

    The EU Blows $683 million (£520m) on a carbon capture project – that captured nothing!

    An investigation found that Brussels blew the colossal sum of cash on a drive to build underground storage facilities for CO2 emissions – but no such facilities were ever constructed.

    This week the architect of the scheme, a former Lib Dem MEP, admitted this was because officials bungled their predictions for the environmental costs facing businesses.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/09/the-eu-blows-683-million-520m-on-a-carbon-capture-project-that-captured-nothing/

  8. RAH says:

    Oh they can get even dumber.
    “Climate change could dull fall’s spectacular colors
    Warmer temperatures, drought, and heavy rain throw trees off schedule.”
    https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2017/11/climate-change-could-dull-fall-colors/

    As if the time of “peak colors” and it’s duration never varied before. These people are idiots!

  9. Steve Case says:

    Obviously there are legitimate reasons to produce and store CO2 for profit.
    Combating “Global Warming’Climate Change” isn’t one of them.

    Carbon dioxide along with water are the basic feed stocks of life on Earth. Schemes designed to interrupt the carbon cycle are entirely without merit.

  10. garyh845 says:

    “Why not simply leave the healthy, life stimulating CO2 in the atmosphere, and let plants outside the greenhouses grow faster?”

    I just couldn’t wait to get to the place where I knew you were going to say that.

  11. garyh845 says:

    I realize that Tony is summarizing this . .
    “Scientists agree that unless . .”
    “Scientists also say that . .”

    But the media presents it like this all the time. As if all scientists agree.

    Which scientists? How many ‘scientists’ actually make those precise radically wild claims? 10? 20? Any?

    • A British scientist who goes by 1000frolly on Youtube has counted them up. He counts 18 Climate Cassandras with science degrees who work on IPCC reports. Add Gavin and whutzisname and that’s 20 (Frolly, an Englishman, does not count mathematicians as scientists). Compare that with the over 31000 signatories to the Petition Project that have kept the Senate from ratifying Kyoto and Paris capitulations. If only those are the 3%, it would take 5x the combined membership of the APS and American Chemical Society to complete the much-ballyhooed but still fake 97%.

    • Louis Hooffstetter says:

      “Scientists agree that unless we reduce dangerous carbon emissions, the world will pass the 2C warming level, leading to climate catastrophe.”

      No. Witch Doctors agree that unless we reduce dangerous carbon emissions, the world will pass the 2C warming level, leading to climate catastrophe.

      The left always confuses Witch Doctors with Scientists.

  12. RAH says:

    Just a reminder that it’s Veterans day and what it means. This is one of my favorites.
    Freedom Never Cries – Five For Fighting

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ34M5-CJHE

    • Kozlowski says:

      To be fair to Jerry Brown, aka Governor Moonbeam, the people in question were protesters, chanting to “keep it in the ground” and disrupting his speech. He retorted that he would like to “keep them in the ground” and the press went nuts. Typical clickbait. Normally it works for him. In this one isolated case, it worked against him.

      • RAH says:

        I posted the link to the story that tells all of that. But why anyone thinks that the guy needs to be treated fairly is beyond me.

  13. AndyG55 says:

    I have no problems with the harvesting of CO2 at its power station source and transporting it to where higher concentrations are required. Especially if its the cheapest method of getting those higher concentration.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Pretty sure my greenhouse farming friend on the central coast gets a lot of his CO2 from Eraring Power Station.

      Great place for growing stuff, the central coast, if it had decent soil.

  14. Margaret Smith says:

    Some carbon capture companies are already doing this, and selling the CO2 to greenhouses who release it into the air- which makes plants grow faster.

    I laughed out loud when I read this. Do they actually read what they write? Or are they just that desperate?

  15. Rufus says:

    Oh my. You listened to NPR. I understand the impulse to walk on the dark side once in a while but really, NPR? E.A. Poe called it the ‘Imp of the Perverse.’ The overwhelming urge to jump off a cliff when you know better.

    The last time I listened to NPR I too was driving. I nearly caused several accidents in the process of shouting at the radio. I’d been better off texting.

    Love your work there T.H. Keep up the good fight.

  16. Latitude says:

    The companies doing this…are also getting CCS subsidies

    In spite of it all…they are also getting government money

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *