And I show which parts of the "Science" are wrong, and why, backed with applied data, maths, and physics, in which I am well qualified and long experienced.
I show also why use of solar does fix all the things you mentioned.
As long as you are talking about "Renewables", "Net-zero", and CO2, you are missing the point, and behind the times.
When you start talking about mathematically positive energy (added to Earth), mathematically negative energy (subtracted from Earth), Solar stimulus, and the role of hydrogen functionally replacing fossil fuels with none of the pollution, and even food (See "Solein", the input energy component is hydrogen), then maybe you will be closer to being up to date.
There is nothing wrong with admitting we are all in a learning process, our records documenting our learning, including books, will naturally document our learning process, it should never stand stiil, we should recognise when others are more advanced than us, and do our best to keep up when we find they are ahead.
You mentioned you had done two or three years research.
I've done seven, starting at PhD candidate level, after already a long career as a Systems Engineer (Chartered). before most of that I already had historical energy handling patents.
No shame if your experience in life is different, and I am sorry if this causes you to have to do work to catch up, but you should be happy to realise the solution means the end of all requirements to "keep up". We won't have to any longer, after the solution has been moved to. We don't have a choice in this, nature is driving it.