All Episodes
Previous Next
April 2, 2025 - The David Knight Show
11:46
Musk’s $100 Million CO2 Con: Green Grift Goes On
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Elon Musk, however, is not on our side with this issue.
He never was.
He bought 100% into all of this insanity.
He was a hardcore leftist.
This is where he made his money, selling green grifts and things like that.
And just to give you an example, before he reinvented himself as the hero of conservatives, Musk has a foundation.
He's got a Musk Foundation, just like Gates has got a Gates Foundation.
The Rockefellers have a Rockefeller Foundation.
He's got a Musk Foundation.
And they have put up an award of $100 million for development of carbon dioxide removal technology.
That dovetails really nicely, doesn't it, with what, Doug Burgum?
The governor of North Dakota and Kristi Noem, the governor of South Dakota, and this guy who was running the pipeline.
I forget his name and the name of the pipeline.
But the three of them went down to Mar-a-Lago.
We're talking to Trump about all of this stuff.
And now Doug Burgum is Interior Secretary.
You know, they're gonna build a pipeline that's gonna go across the country and It was going to capture CO2 in other places and then pump it into the ground.
Well, you got to be able to capture that carbon.
And that's what Elon Musk set up a competitive contest with a prize of a hundred million dollars to grab CO2 out of the atmosphere.
Basically mess up our atmosphere because we have plants who need that.
And it's touted as the largest incentive prize in history.
A hundred million dollars.
An extraordinary milestone.
And it is boasted about on Trump's XPRIZE.org.
XPRIZE.org.
Run by the Musk Foundation.
XPRIZE carbon removal is aimed at attacking the biggest threat facing humanity.
Fighting climate change and rebalancing the Earth's carbon cycle.
Messing it up, actually.
But isn't that interesting, how this all converges?
You've got these two governors, North and South Dakota, now both of them in the Trump administration.
You've got the CEO of the pipeline, and then you've got Musk working on how they're going to grab CO2 and stick it in the pipeline.
Well, I tell you what, these grifts just keep coming together, just like that decentralized finance world liberty nonsense.
So they're using so-called man-made climate change as a ruse to enslave people.
By the way, this is coming from the New American.
Excellent article.
The X-Prize goals.
The planet is reaching, says the X-Prize, the planet is reaching its highest temperatures in over three million years.
They say that in a promotional video.
Prove it.
Prove it.
You know, and so what if it's true?
Right? I don't believe that at all.
It's false.
It's absurd.
Three million years, they've done the data analysis on this, have they really?
So, neither XPRIZE nor the Musk Foundation offer any data to justify any of their fallacious claims, says the New American, and that's probably because actual data proves otherwise, time and time and time again.
They've got some links to studies that have disproven this nonsense.
XPRIZE launched its carbon removal project In 2019, before Trump had, before Musk, I should say, had his come to Trump moment, his road to Damascus, or his road to Washington, D.C. experience, right?
He has a sudden enlightenment that Trump is our Lord and Savior, right?
So he was doing this, he started this back in 2019.
They had 1,300 teams from 88 countries are competing in this.
Because this is a big prize, a hundred million dollars.
Competitors are charged with removing carbon from air, from oceans, from land, and from rocks.
In 2023, XPRIZE then selected 20 finalists out of these 1,300 teams.
They're down to 20 in 2023.
To win, contestants have to remove and sequester 1,000 tons of CO2 per year.
And I have to demonstrate the potential to scale to gigaton levels by 2050.
Gigatons of CO2 removed.
We've only got 0.04% of the atmosphere is CO2.
They want to get rid of all of it, I guess.
So we want to turn the world into Mars?
Is that the objective here?
Because you're going to be destroying the environment if you deplete the CO2.
We need the CO2.
It's not an evil.
CO2, carbon dioxide, is not like It's carbon monoxide.
It's not going to kill us all.
It's not going to make the planet warmer.
There's no connection between CO2 increase and temperature increase.
CO2 was supposed to drive the temperature increase.
Remember that?
That was the Michael Mann nonsense.
And that has been completely debunked.
It has been disproven by time.
And not only time and time again.
All their predictions have been disproven.
That was what was at the center of ClimateGate back in 2009, and yet here, you know, a decade after ClimateGate, you've got Elon Musk setting up a $100 million contest to get rid of CO2, which we already know by now is not a problem.
Why is he doing that?
Well, because they want to make a lot of money with carbon sequestration and with pipelines and such like that.
That's what this is truly about.
It's not about the environment at all.
It's about making Elon Musk more money.
He's not going to invest a hundred million dollars out of the goodness of his heart.
This is an investment to make money, and we will soon know who the winners are.
Elon Musk is going to announce the winners of his environmental destruction project on Earth Day this year, April the 22nd.
You think this guy's on your side?
35 years ago, NASA space scientist, Dr. Roy Spencer, got the climate stuff exactly right.
He said, and again, this is a guy who was working for NASA, he was working on satellites, and there's a clip of the article right there that you can see.
He said, if someone is sure that there's greenhouse warming occurring, hey, you listening to this, Musk?
That's more emotional than scientific because the evidence has been questionable.
Over the decades, we've gone from questionable evidence To just plain hoax.
And so this paper, this article here, was from the 30th of March, 1990.
So, you know, we're talking about 35 years ago.
And 35 years ago, he said, satellite measurement shows no global warming.
Computer models of the greenhouse effect predict an average global warming of nearly one half a degree per decade, said John Christie, a research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
Instead, he said, in the Northern Hemisphere, there was no temperature trend at all.
Christie said, while in the Southern Hemisphere, temperatures were slightly down.
A net effect of basically zero.
There's your net zero!
They've already got it!
It's not net zero energy use, it's net zero climate change.
And we have seen that now for 35 years.
These people did this in 1990.
And that's well before You had Al Gore's convenient lie.
That's well before, you know, when he was pushing Michael Mann's hockey stick nonsense and everything.
It was well before Climategate, where they said, hey, our models don't work, and we've got to figure out how we're going to hide the decline.
So back in 1990, he said, this stuff is not working.
He says, as a matter of fact, you know, it hasn't changed in the Northern Hemisphere and the Southern Hemisphere.
The temperatures have actually gone down.
But, you know, it's about zero, we'll say, net zero.
Well, he said I said Spencer and Christy spent two years studying data from a series of weather satellites the first of which was launched in 1978 by the way in 1978 they were still that was about the time that they flipped the script from saying that we were going to go into global cooling they flipped the script and said no we're gonna have a global warming you know just We were all going to die because the planet
was going to have a new ice age.
Then we're all going to die because it's going to be too warm.
And so that was right about the time they put this up.
They said, how do they measure the temperature with a satellite?
Well, they measure the microwave heat emission that is given off by oxygen.
Studying the measurements, the two scientists were surprised to see substantial changes in global temperature versus climate averages on a monthly and even weekly basis.
They said we'd see 10 to 20 years worth of global warming and cooling in just a few months.
In other words, the weather was changing.
The weather was changing rapidly.
What was not changing was climate.
And this is why these people come up with all these alarmist things.
Oh, lookit!
This is the warmest year we've ever had!
And so forth and so on.
They said we would see, even with the satellite stuff, they would see very quick, massive changes.
Cooling, warming, But it would all average out to a net zero climate change.
He says that it's much more accurate than using thermometers.
He said, first of all, the data covers the whole globe without relying on weather stations that are unevenly distributed.
And they interpolate, right?
And a lot of these places, if they still have them, they're now In places that are kind of like heat islands or there may be now on an airport tarmac when before they were in a more rural setting If they even have them and then of course is also the issue of the accuracy of these digital Thermometers compared with the earlier readings if they have them they were taken from analog thermometers He said secondly the data measures temperatures high above the earth surface Where
a greenhouse signal would be more apparent Hello, it's me, Volodymyr Zelensky.
I'm so tired of wearing these same t-shirts everywhere for years.
You'd think with all the billions I've skimmed off America, I could dress better.
And I could.
If only David Knight would send me one of his beautiful grey MacGuffin hoodies or a new black t-shirt with the MacGuffin logo in blue.
But he told me to get lost.
Maybe one of you American suckers can buy me some at the davidknightshow.com.
And David is giving a 10% discount to listeners from now until 2025.
At that price, you should be able to buy me several hundred.
Those amazing sand-colored microphone hoodies are so beautiful.
I'd wear something other than green military cosplay to my various galas and social events.
▲
Export Selection