Do we really know, human greenhouse gas emissions cause etc

Indeed. The rush into net zero will inevitably lead to less cars on the road and “ 15 minute cities’.
One might wonder whether less cars on the road and “ 15 minute cities’ are the primary objectives .

The OP is a good summary of the situation so far - and it's worth reading for those who don't understand scientific method because it assumes no prior knowledge - which is helpful for some on this forum (naming no names).

The only bit I disagree with is that this is "the greatest scientific fraud of all time". I don't think this is actually a "scientific fraud" because in this case I think that science has been hijacked by politicians - and bodies like the IPCC who exist to further their own political agenda. I have never heard ANY scientist claim that "CO2 is the primary cause of global warming". There is simply no evidence to show this.

And the attempts to show that there is a correlation between CO2 concentration and warming are invalidated because the bodies that put forward this theory invariably use smoothing algorithms that feed the data through their own models. In other words the "smoothing" eliminates so-called "incorrect" readings by checking whether they fit their own predictions. This is obviously not science.

IMO there's a different question to answer. Are human beings destroying - or at the very least severely changing - our planet in unpredictable ways. And the answer to that is obviously yes. But it's almost certainly nothing to do with CO2 (which is largely beneficial at the current low levels) - it's to do with the changes we have to make to the planet to accommodate our huge population, and their requirements for more infrastructure and housing etc.

There is absolutely no argument whatsoever that the changes we've made to the land surface of the Earth to house and feed our burgeoning population has caused huge damage to our way of life. If you're looking for reasons for our warming, flooding, fires etc, look no further than population increases (from 1 billion to 8 billion in a bit over 100 years). But absolutely NO politician of any party will say this.

Blaming CO2 is politically much simpler. But even cutting CO2 to zero will make no difference - even if it were possible. So what happens when we find this out, many decades down the road, having bankrupted most of the Western economies while continents like Africa have had huge increases in population and destroyed their own beautiful country?

There are many sacrifices being sought currently in the name of future generations on what amounts to a suspicion. I see those of an alarmist bent have managed to not address at all the contents of the link and repeat the same old tired mantra. The problem is of course that the research is based on the official climate observations. So much for following science.

Newt zero wont stop global warming. Newt zero applied globally (or in a way that might make any odds at all) would cause a disaster of such colossal proportions it would probably end civilisation.

My broader point is that we are comparing two disasters - one is more or less certain if it becomes policy and the other is a matter of speculation. That's not much to go on.

"Seems more likely" is just your hunch btw.

Yep: "Let's kill ourselves now in case we kill ourselves later" isn't a compelling argument to me.