Thank you for your crystal-clear presentation of the utter impossibility of meeting Net Zero goals with any of the proposed solutions. It's abundantly clear that the only way to meet those goals is to drastically reduce the human population AND drastically reduce the standard of living of the vast majority of that population - owning nothing, and being confined to our 15 minute cities with no private motor vehicles and no commercial air travel.
The big question for me is, do our politicians know that these are the only ways to meet the Net Zero goals and they're OK with that (believing that they will be among the favoured few who will not be confined to the neofeudal plantation) or are they so stupid and ignorant that they don't understand it and are just going along with it because 'the party' says so?
I find it unlikely the politicians would know (except Gerard Rennick, because he confirmed receipt of this report from me after I personally emailed it to him). Simon Michaux's analysis is a radical outlier because he used *real-world* assumptions and benchmarks rather than the gross under-reporting utilised by the IEA and WEF. We'll come to them in Part 4, which I've almost completed.
Fair play for ploughing through that research!
No worries mate! Please share it around and educate some folks about what is really going on!
Thank you for your crystal-clear presentation of the utter impossibility of meeting Net Zero goals with any of the proposed solutions. It's abundantly clear that the only way to meet those goals is to drastically reduce the human population AND drastically reduce the standard of living of the vast majority of that population - owning nothing, and being confined to our 15 minute cities with no private motor vehicles and no commercial air travel.
The big question for me is, do our politicians know that these are the only ways to meet the Net Zero goals and they're OK with that (believing that they will be among the favoured few who will not be confined to the neofeudal plantation) or are they so stupid and ignorant that they don't understand it and are just going along with it because 'the party' says so?
I find it unlikely the politicians would know (except Gerard Rennick, because he confirmed receipt of this report from me after I personally emailed it to him). Simon Michaux's analysis is a radical outlier because he used *real-world* assumptions and benchmarks rather than the gross under-reporting utilised by the IEA and WEF. We'll come to them in Part 4, which I've almost completed.
Have you sent it to Malcolm Roberts? He's been very outspoken about the climate scam; it's what got him into politics in the first place.
I'll do that tomorrow! Thanks for the tip.