A Non-Peer Reviewed Critique of an Example of the Garbage that Passes For Science
A Non-Peer Reviewed Critique of an Example of the Garbage that Passes For Science
Tim O’Connor – Center for the Preservation of Humanity – 7/28/2023
The following is an account of my take on a scientific paper appearing in the peer reviewed journal, Sustainability. The folks that ‘work’ there toil to destroy humanity. What passes for scientific advancement under the ruse of sustainability in the context this ‘journal’ posits it means is not only unscientific it is a collection of lies based on lies. The intent is to defraud, subdue, enslave, and ultimately murder every single person on earth who does not agree with the science of consensus. The paper being critiqued is titled On Carbon Tax Effectiveness in Inducing a Clean Technology Transition: An Evaluation Based on Optimal Strategic Capacity Planning. The five authors who were involved in creating this piece of ‘scientific’ literature are not climate scientists – they are demonic entities who should be arrested for lending their skill sets to defrauding the entire world based on lies.
Since 1992 there has been a concerted effort to enslave every living thing on earth. Those who are not willing to partake in this scheme and have the courage to reject it have been targeted for extermination. The 1992 document is titled “United Nations Conference on Environment & Development Rio de Janerio, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992” and referred to more commonly as Agenda 21. Before Agenda 21 and the Millennium Goals which followed, there was global cooling that was going to kill everyone. Before that there was a guy named Malthus who stated that everyone would die from starvation due to overpopulation back in 1798. Charles Darwin actually used the false teachings of Malthus to inform his own demonic visions of evolution and natural selection. Nothing that Malthus stated came to pass. Nothing that modern day Malthusian death cultists like Paul Ehrlich have come about. Yet, the UN still persists in efforts despite the failure to fully implement Agenda 21 and the abject failure of meeting the Millennium Goals. They still persist in their quest for human extinction under Agenda 2030, a shorter and revised version of Agenda 21, and the Sustainable Development Goals which spawned from it.
As the propaganda surrounding climate change (we aren’t supposed to call it global warming anymore) increased, the corporate overlords of the earth which hatched these plans in the first place began taking measures to reduce their footprints. This meant recycling and proper disposal of waste items, the responsible use of chemicals, and the banning of certain classes of harmful elements being released into the environment. These are all positive things which are meant to prevent the general public’s exposure to harmful agents. Of course, what ended up happening is new, more toxic agents were created, rubber stamped by such regulatory boards, and have been used to intentionally poison the world around us including our food (GMO and glyphosate for starters) and water (fluoridation for example). But, of primary interest to the Malthusians who want to create a reason to impose slavery through austerity over all of humanity, climate change was drempt up and these mosters have lied their way right into taxing every human being into oblivion because of the carbon they produce and ‘consume’. That is what the ‘expert’s’ paper is about in Sustainability the ‘journal’.
Right off the bat the authors preclude that climate change (global warming in particular) is settled and cannot be debated. The titles of the papers these ‘experts’ used to source that claim seem to be slightly biased however. One is titled Consensus on consensus: A synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming and the other is titled Towards a rigorous understanding of societal responses to climate change. At this point in this article, my work is basically done.
The authors of a declaration demanding our economies no longer be based on human ingenuity and hard work but on carbon credits and the enslavement regimes necessary to implement them found it important to remind every one that man-made climate change only exists in the context of consensus. If I took a thousand people, offered each of them $10,000, and told them they would only receive the payment if they stated the sky is jet black at high noon, the consensus would be that the sky is jet black at high noon. That’s not science. That is fraud. And man-made climate change is a fraud of this exact nature. The second sourced article is a creative effort in revisionist history conducted by a wide range of pathological liars who earned science degrees but actually partake in art and fabricating narratives which sound great but cannot be proven nor disproven. After all, isn’t that how the really big lies work. There is always some incorporated truth in them in order to postulate the desired outcomes based on the presumptuous lies and distortions of what the truth really is.
Before we are all enslaved under ESG dictates (the corporate version of enslavement), forced to accept a social credit score (the individual, biometric, score which contains data such as our carbon credit balances and retinal scans) to participate in the ESG economy, and forced into the open-air, artificial intelligence monitored police states lovingly called Smart Cities (how stupid does one have to be to voluntarily live in that environment), we should probably be relying on real science with real proof. Instead, all of this is being done because there is a Malthusian consensus in the social circles of the elite. And it is all based on models created by ‘scientists’ who are paid by the same elite. It is also this same elite which has members of most, if not all, of the largest corporations in the world working on their behalf to make sure these diabolical plans are implemented. Additionally, it is these same elites who own an overwhelming majority of the media outlets and have captured the minds of union heads. George Carlin once quipped that ‘it’s a big club and you’re not in it’…. Here is the club he was speaking about and here is what they are doing to all of life on earth.
The paper in Sustainability the ‘journal’ is very mathematics dense. Even in the literature review of those who have gone before them in modeling the effects of taxing carbon, mathematics plays a huge role. I am not a mathematician. To my limited and very recent understanding, the primary mathematical modeling scheme used in this paper as well as the ones before it constitute a matrix which will produce a wide range of answers based on the variables inserted into the matrix. To me, if I wanted to mathematically model how two ducks could create a woolly mammoth I would just choose my variables carefully and focus only on the calculation that results in what I desire. In other words, a lot of deception could be going on here depending on the variables inserted into the matrix.
What I took from the literature review section of the article is that the authors used this sort of mathematical model to justify major changes in how we work, the hours we work, and places a premium on replacing machines with carbon-friendly machines to lessen the company’s burden of carbon tax schemes. Obviously these models did not anticipate that these electricity dependent machines will never have enough electricity to operate properly nor will they be able to remain on. A big part of the austerity under the Eco-terrorist's ‘artificial scarcity and austerity for all’ regime is making sure that resources are not available all the time for everyone. In short, expect rolling brownouts and blackouts until they decide to blame Russia for one of the US power grids going down as a false-flag pretext to start a major, global war, as well as to have the grid come back online but in order for anyone to access it we must submit to internet ID’s and biometric surveillance. I also took away from this section that the production of goods will be reduced and the availability and affordability of those items will render them virtually unobtainable. Apply that to all goods, hood, housing, and energy included. That’s the point of artificial scarcity – the forced submission by all to their demands.
I skipped all of the math in the paper because it was too tedious for me to continue sifting through. I know they are counting on people to do that, so, if there are any mathematicians out there looking for something to do, please have at it. At the end of the paper, there are several ‘insights’ offered for the businesses affected and the ‘environmental’ regulators who are ushering in the realization of the Malthusian dream. One of the insights is that the taxes should be made unreasonably heavy so that businesses will face a choice of going bankrupt or conceding to the green-death-cultitst’s demands. Another subtle suggestion not explicitly mentioned is that any start-up or entrepreneurial activity will be made impossible under the green economy and carbon taxation schemes.
Under the insights section pertaining to the Eco-terrorists in the governmental regulatory business several really great ideas are proposed. The first one reads, “The overall objective of carbon tax policies is to encourage companies to use clean technology by penalizing the use of dirty technology. The ultimate goal should be that 100 percent of the industrial activities subject to the tax should be carried out using clean technology.” Remember when clean coal wasn’t clean enough and Barack Hussein Obama promised to put them out of business? That is precisely what the authors of this paper are demanding all businesses which are not Eco-terrorist compliant face. In order to make it even more miserable, the authors also suggest that carbon taxes be made progressive so as to invite fraud and corruption even more so into the equation (those variable are rarely, if ever, accounted for). And, apparently because the extra burdens carbon taxes will place on the businesses who are forced to pay them will be reflected in increased consumer prices, the authors also suggest that the consumers (taxpayers) subsidize these businesses Eco-terrorism compliance transition. No matter what, we will end up paying for all of this through price increases or through increased taxes to bay for corporate subsidies without any benefit whatsoever to us. All we will be doing is funding our own demise.
The conclusion is a mathematically worded but full blown statement of how fascist all of this really is. The companies will collude with the government to serve the government’s interests while literally extorting the consumers and tax-payers.
The authors in love with the Eco-terrorism version of fascism (which will leave billions, not tens of millions dead) even point to a suggested retail price for producing a ton of carbon dioxide, a necessary building black of all life on the planet. The price was suggested in an International Monetary Fund piece in December of 2019. The timeline fits – the IMF knew what was happening in China, likely bankrolled the entire scheme, and was likely one of the planning bodies recommending that once the Covid-19 craze played out the demands for climate justice and geoengineering operations should intensify.
The price they set should sicken everyone in the United States. It was $35 a ton. In rich countries the price was set at double that, $70 a ton, although the price could start low and incrementally increase. In order to make the poor not suffer, redistributions of wealth were declared in the piece. Why should the price sicken you? Between 1879 and 1933 the currency of the United States was able to be redeemed for gold. One ounce of the metal cost $35. It was a radical Marxist who wiped his ass routinely with the US Constitution who ended gold redemption and also banned citizens in the US from even owning gold. It was revived in 1944 under the Bretton Woods agreement but once more ended (although not confiscated as FDR did) in 1971 by Nixon. But, I ask, is a ton of carbon dioxide really equivalent to an ounce of gold? I don’t think that the price was a coincidence – I think it was a slap in the face to every US citizen. I also don’t think that a quadrupling prices for coal, doubling the costs of electricity, and raising gasoline prices by 40% is something anyone should be seriously proposing doing to anyone. Yet, that is what carbon taxes would do.
Anything produced by a cow including meat, milk, and leather goods would be taxed at the industry level between $108.5 and $217 billion annually. The poultry industry would be charged at least $21 billion up to $42 billion annually. Tesla alone would be forced to fork over at anywhere from $9.8 million to $19.7 million and possibly more. Think what you will about Elon Musk, he says the right things to make us think he is pro-humanity but what he does is all Eco-terrorism. The US, according to the Environmental ‘Protection’ Agency produced 6 trillion tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2021. If carbon taxes were in effect the costs would have been at least $210 trillion. The people arguing for a carbon tax to the tune of $210 trillion dollars (all of which will be shouldered by consumers and taxpayers) would mean we all starve to death. But, for fun, the EPA states that 28% of this carbon is produced in transportation. That equates to 1.68 trillion tonnes and if we were only taxed for that one sector of the economy which allows people and goods to get to where people need then, the price tag would have been no less $58.8 trillion. This is math that I am able to do yet, in this ‘scientific’ ‘journal’ article it is no where to be seen.
If the article clued anyone in to what the totals are – respectively 9 and 2.5 times the GDP of the US in 2021 – everyone, even the authors of this ‘scientific’ piece would be forced to admit that this cannot work because the amount of money being spoken of DOES NOT EXIST. If carbon taxes are implemented even remotely as the authors suggest and the money doesn't exist, the inflation rate would go absolutely berserk making Hungary’s WWII price doubling every 15 hours look like a joke, the cost of living even on subsistence levels of food would be cost prohibitive even if one’s home was in a cave with no electricity and no other expenses, and the entire United States of America would be thrust into the news in nations which were not so eager to adopt carbon taxes depicting us eating each other in the streets. The point of the article in this scientific journal was to show support for the collapse of society, the mass murder of billions of people, and another display of how the Hegelian dialect works. These scientists in their fascist partnerships with governments and elites created a problem that still does not exist, committed and continue to commit crimes against humanity to make the problem seem real, and demand that bowing down and accepting the decrees of the murderous sycophants who claim to be the saviors of everything on earth is the solution.
This is why people are now questioning science. This is why experts are no longer trusted. This is why no one should ever again trust the science nor trust the experts who proclaim that we should trust the science. If we don’t they claim that we should be arrested and sent to whatever psychologically and physically murderous version of gulag that have on their design tables. The experts and the scientists are all betting paid to murder us. The experts and the scientists are the ones who decided that science is just a consensus of people claiming to be experts by virtue of other experts claiming they are experts. Peter Hotez is a mass-murderer who should be tried and hung for his crimes yet, he is called an expert only by his peers who also happen to actually be mass-murderers. Yet, this is what passes for science.
The father of lies is behind all of the people pushing for extinction-level economic systems such as these. I will unabashedly call the entire Eco-terrorist crowd satanic. I don’t care if they attend church 15 times a week, they are satanic. Their fruits reveal their allegiances. Suspiciously, these mass-murderers have the same allegiances as their predecessors. Malthus was clearly an ambassador of Satan, as was Darwin, Galton, that maniac Hitler who carried Darwinian theories to their logical conclusion with genocidal effect, and those who have successfully revived Hitler’s plans like Margret Sanger, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Paul Ehrlich and thousands of others.
Want to learn the truth? Repent from the evil ways of the world and live as Jesus commanded us to live – love God with all your strength, heart, and soul and love your neighbors as you love yourselves. I wrestle with this but these Eco-terrorists are not my neighbors. I would love nothing more than to see them engulfed in the flames of balls of sulfur and turned into pillars of salt by the hand of almighty God. If we turn back to God and stop committing ourselves to all of these evils, I think God would be pleased. Since we will not, in my estimations, I can picture Him waiting to unleash fireballs and far worse upon this world. Take refuge in the Word of God and the promise of salvation offered by the sacrifice of Yeshua and strive to not become a target of God’s wrath which is surely approaching this world. Speak truth and refute lies.
Bless God and God bless.